how to get that fat house music sound ?

**eddlife** · 02-08-2004

I am into house music , but i wonder how do guys like daft punk , DJ Falcon , Alan braxe ,(I think they are friends) do to have that fat sound ??? their sound is fat , big bass and drums at the same time : anything to see with compression ??? (side chain , bus compression, master compression,,??)
i try compression but my mix get to tightened, and I am loosing fatness and need all the time to push the drums in front : how do they do to keep that consistensy and have dynamic at the same time ??
they achieve to have big bass in their mixes with fat bass drums at the same time (with the good dynamic ) and their mixes does not sound tightened...
any suggestions of tips , techniques or a particular machine ???

**imikeyi** · 02-09-2004

Man every one of those guys you mentioned uses samples. Alot. The whole french house scene is littered with sampling of old disco records. For example, the Alan Braxe song 'Runnin' samples 'Crush on you' from the 1980s, as its main chorus. Thats how they get the fat sound; they claim someone elses work as their own..

ANYWAY, as for the bass drum. You can get a sharper kick by using compression. Use EQ to keep the elements of the mix seperate. Also try a mastering program, I heard Izotope Ozone 3 is good.

**BENJ-AMG** · 02-09-2004

Originally posted by imikeyi
Man every one of those guys you mentioned uses samples. Alot. The whole french house scene is littered with sampling of old disco records. For example, the Alan Braxe song 'Runnin' samples 'Crush on you' from the 1980s, as its main chorus. Thats how they get the fat sound; they claim someone elses work as their own..

ANYWAY, as for the bass drum. You can get a sharper kick by using compression. Use EQ to keep the elements of the mix seperate. Also try a mastering program, I heard iZotope Ozone 3 is good.

Not true. Being sampled has nothing to do with it. He wants to know how those guys acheive huge bass and kicks that reside in the same relative freq. range. The answer is generic, because mentioning the tools that are used to create this effect can supply only part of the solution. The more critical element is more elusive. It's one of experience and skill. The artists mentioned practically invented the filtered french house sound by realizing the benefits of good filter manipulation. It comes down to clever, disciplined use of eq, compression and filtering. Thats it. I agree that keeping elements of the mix separate is VITAL. Its a game of trial and error. Experiment with different combos. By the way, eddlife, I responded to your other related post about this topic a little more specifically. Check it out; hope it helps.

**imikeyi** · 02-09-2004

Originally posted by BENJ-AMG

It comes down to clever, disciplined use of eq, compression and filtering. Thats it.

True, I was discussing the fatness of the music in general though.

**BENJ-AMG** · 02-09-2004

Originally posted by imikeyi

True, I was discussing the fatness of the music in general though.

I still don't understand why you refer to the use of samples as the reason behind why the music sounds more full or fatter. The samples have been reshaped sonically to display attributes that, in this case, they were never intended to have had. Anyone can take a sample and load it into an MPC or Giga or Kontakt or Halion whatever....and if they use it without intelligently resurfacing it to project a different quality, then of course its a weak use of sampling. That is not the case with most of the big House cats. They recognize the potential of prerecorded sounds as they might benefit a modern makeover. And that is how they approach them. Not as a ripoff point, but as a springboard to creating something modern.

**Celltrip** · 02-10-2004

Just cut everything below 50hz from the bassline. This keeps it from messing up with the kick but still maintains enough low end. You propably need a good parametric EQ to do that.

**imikeyi** · 02-10-2004

Originally posted by BENJ-AMG

And that is how they approach them. Not as a ripoff point, but as a springboard to creating something modern.

Firstly, I define 'fat' as a sound which saturates the ears, its like you can't quite tell what the instrument is, all you know is its a big wave of lush fat sound.

Now, as soon as he mentioned Alan Braxe, daft punk etc I immediately thought of a number of their tracks with a phat house quality. Not the beats, but the actual song. All these songs sounded fat because of the sample. In many cases they didnt change the sample much at all.

Ps, we obviously have different views on sampling. But I consider composing music to be the greatest challenge in music production, and these 'artists' have completely skipped this step. For example, Daft Punks "Harder better faster stronger" is such a ripoff of another song it makes me sick. Maybe you think they are geniuses because they copied another song.. but I dont.

**R2B** · 02-10-2004

'Sampling' might probably be the issue BUT the opposite way.

I keep insisting

the sound of the final mix, especially the BD/Bass combo depends A LOT on the raw material and on the quality of the low freq monitoring.
From what I know, the big name House pros use mostly hardware gear or at least first generation drum samples for the basics, sampled straight out of the box. Most commercial or freeware samples (also the ones that come standard with VST drum plugs, FL etc.) are second generation or even later, often heavily processed, some might have even been cut out of some production or loop.

The difference between a 909 kick straight from the vintage Roland box and a clone from Collection XYZ becomes quite obvious on large studio speakers or on good subwoofers. You can literally tell that the original 909 had been optimised back in the days and contains the whole frequency spectrum to work with. Now a sampled drum sound is likely to be lacking something somewhere and/or to contain some artefacts from the way it was processed. Think of it as a raw diamond vs. an already polished one. A raw gem looks fairly bland at first but you can give it the shape you want, whereas the already shaped one can only but get smaller or duller if you try to re-shape it. The same is true - or even more so - for bass sounds.

Without having heard where your problem really is I can only suggest to hunt for the best possible quality for your raw sounds and then only apply processing (disciplined use

I like that...) if sounds are clashing.

[We were always lucky to find somebody with hardware gear where we could sample out of the box instead of using commercial samples. It does make a difference.]

The other issue is proper monitoring. I had to painfully learn in the past that mixing on a 6 inch woofer on nearfields is like driving through thick fog at night, bass-wise. There's nothing like feeling the bass when mixing, and also to A-B compare the bass energy to commercial productions.

Try mixing with a good quality subwoofer and you'll feel when the bottom comes alive, believe me. A mate of mine does his final checks through a small club PA and does some DJ-mixing of his tracks with other House tracks in real-time.

From my experience, there really is no magic recipe to get the punch that feels right for you. What works best for me is to loop the track (eq flat) and then step through all the kicks until I hit the one that sits properly with the bass. I shape the bass first cos' the pitch changes in my bass lines are quite drastic, as opposed to the BD. Only at the end I do a bit of eq-ing and compression - if necessary.

ez
B#

**BENJ-AMG** · 02-10-2004

Here is what I do agree with you about: sampling whole phrases or loops from prerecorded material is lazy and unimaginative. Hardly news. But, I disagree with you 100% about sampling not being an outlet for composing music. A good producer can create amazingly individual songs from samples without revealing the source material. And I am not talking about people like DJ Shadow et al.. If you want proof, go pick up Jan Jelineks Loop Finding Jazz Records, Akufens My Way, Atomhearts Roger Tubesound Ensemble or any other one of the thousands of examples of creative and innovative producers who use primarily samples and listen closely. Thats just as tough as writing music. It is rewriting music.

**Delphine** · 02-10-2004

Artists like Daft Punk, use a lot of sidechained compression to achieve their characteristic sound, not necessarily the sample usage. Thomas Bangalter is another example, although quite not the same effect, more of an overall compression over the whole mix.

That sound is not hard to achieve, ( although certain comps do a better job ) The bass end of the mix is purposely kept lower than you would have it normally and an exaggerated kickdrum is used. The compression pumps the mix between each kick, thus raising the bass level too. The release time of the compressor is the key here.

Daft Punk use the Alesis 3630 quite a lot. Very good for this type of pumping effect. Some software compressors dont seem to do the job as good IMO, they just 'suck' all the life out of the mix.