Do you think any Aphex songs could do with remastering/re-mixed?

  On 5/20/2014 at 3:27 PM, pierlu said:

 

I had not seen this thread already, but yesterday, just for fun, I tried eqing Xtal a little bit. Well, the basso is booming for sure and some eq could bring some clarity to it. When I switched the eq on and off I could definetly hear the difference, expecially in the snare. But then I realize that I was taking away the magic from it. It works, and it works well. When listening to Aphex you should take into account that you are listening to things that he wanted to sound in that way. He would not have released otherwise. He surely does not think in terms of "correct mix" or "mastering"... I bet it's all about the sound. If it sounds how he meant it to sound, it's good, despite what you can call a good mix, or a good mastering.

 

As of Druqks... it's perfect as it is. If you listen close, you know it is so.

 

Completely agree with you.

Hey guys I took a chance and remastered a few of my favorite AFX tracks.

https://soundcloud.com/end-iffy-i-roll/better-mastering-for-selected-afx-traxxx/s-z0CYp

(It's set to private, so click the link)

This is how I imagine AFX should sound in 2014 imo. Please let me know what you think!

This is brilliant. Seamless transitions between the tracks, you are a pro at both mastering and mixing.

no

  On 5/20/2014 at 6:47 PM, noise said:

no

don't

  On 5/20/2014 at 2:48 PM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

i agree with audioblysk. the fine details in drukqs are underrated in this sense, people are letting themselves get distracted by the beat work...easy to do! I guess that's what makes it so special. I really think it's mixed and mastered supurbly considering the level of detail. I also think psn is right in that perhaps some compromises were made to make the whole thing cohesive but that in itself can be good mastering.

 

icbyd could do with a remaster I guess, from memory it's a bit soft.

 

as for pancake lizard, I'm pretty sure either the beat or the whole track has been pitched down which would naturally make it lose a bit of fidelity.

but isn't the reason drukqs sounds slightly flat due to same reason you mention with pancake lizard. He definitely sped up some tracks on drukqs and naturally lost small amounts of quality in the process.

  On 5/20/2014 at 8:23 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 5/20/2014 at 6:47 PM, noise said:

no

don't

 

:(

  On 5/17/2014 at 8:20 PM, jsmcpn2 said:

The first one Richard needs to re-work is Ventolin. There's this horrible high-pitched screech that lasts the entire length of the track! How does anyone that brilliant miss something so obvious??

lol

  On 5/20/2014 at 6:47 PM, noise said:

no

  On 5/20/2014 at 9:52 AM, MisterE said:

 

just one example of the difference, and one that really stands out for me, is the claps in tuss tracks. they are fluid as hell, and it seems like a different clap every time you hear it. perfect reverb, and a really analog sound to them. they could be some advanced digital thing but whatever it is, it's very high quality. a clap on drukqs could be from just about any old drum machine he had lying around, maybe glitched and dsp'd to death in some spots. never sounding anything like a real acoustic or analog sound source.

 

so my personal current theory is that the difference some people perceive between these two groups of tracks is due to the cumulative effect of drukqs being tons and tons of elements per track, many or most of which are very very digital, often lo-fi, in nature, vs tuss just having almost exclusively, slick analog or very high quality digital things going on.

 

Im utterly sure that the tuss claps are real hand claps, (richard ones?), layered in 3 or more tracks, recorded in a non reverberant, silent chamber full of foam with an ultra expensive sets of micros, and then processed via prohibitibe, obscene analogue previous, lush channels, valves, the pussy of Ritchards girlfriend and who knows what to get that marvellous, delicate and organic claps that no computer nor analog synth could dream of.

i feel like they are probably real claps too, or at the very least, real claps layered with others

but it still goes to support my point which is that he was putting a lot of effort into getting very fluid analog/acoustic sounding sounds compared to with drukqs which is largely dsp fuckery with less mind towards sounding in any way fluid, analog, or like actual acoustic sounds (i'm not talking about the prepared piano tracks, just the synth/drum machine ones)

i think the reverb is another thing that's making a big difference between the two (tuss vs drukqs)

edit- i should add that i dont mean to say that drukqs is completely un-fluid/analog/etc sounding, i'm just saying i think it clearly wasn't as much of a goal there where it clearly was part of the whole stated purpose of analord, and obviously tuss was about pushing that even further