Exploring the Evolution of Hi-Tech: An Interview with Paralocks

In this insightful interview with Paralocks, we delve into the evolution of Hi-Tech Psytrance, tracing its roots from its underground beginnings to its current standing as a unique genre in electronic music. Paralocks shares his journey, from the early days when Hitech was simply a subset of Dark Psy Trance, to the dynamic and complex soundscape it embodies today. He discusses the creative processes that define his tracks, including the technological advancements that have reshaped music production over the years. We also gain valuable advice for aspiring producers, as Paralocks reflects on the technical and artistic challenges of producing Hi-Tech. This conversation not only explores the mechanics behind his music but also reveals his personal philosophy: using simple, effective techniques as tools for deeper musical expression.

What defines Hi-tech for you?

Paralocks: The term Hi-Tech for me is quite interesting because Hi-Tech music was around for much longer than the actual name was. There were people making this style of music before it was actually called Hi-Tech.

It still used to fall under the Darkpsy sort of label, but at least for me and my friends, we used to call certain stuff Hi-Tech. Like we used to call Electrypnose and Terranoise Hi-tech. And that wasn't anything to do with the BPM, it was about the glitchy, robotic, futuristic sounds.

And, you know, that music was fairly slow at the time. It was maybe about 150 to 155 BPM. The term became more popular around the Noise Poison era, where people defined the style of music as Hi-Tech. And as soon as it got defined, it started to have rules and parameters.

I think it needed to be 170 BPM and above. The term has evolved so much that it's become quite a distinct sounding style to call something Hi-Tech. Obviously, the BPMs have increased, and there are a lot more people making it than there used to be.

The term has evolved so much that two different tracks could be considered Hi-Tech, but they would sound completely different. I think we're at the point now where the label Hi-Tech is going to start to subdivide, just like how everything used to be called Darkpsy, and then it became Forest, Dark Prog, Hi-Tech, and so on. I think Hi-Tech is now going to start to divide into different categories to further define the style differences. Because, as you know, if you go to a Hi-Tech festival where they’re playing Hi-Tech for three days, the variation in music really changes a lot—not just the BPM, but the whole style and intention.

For me, when I think of Hi-Tech, it’s a feeling that takes me back to old Furious and Cosmo tracks, just a really in-your-face, stripped-down, deep sound. It echoes a feeling of a futuristic dystopia. When I think of it, I imagine a certain space that the music puts you in. As for my music, I'm trying to stay true to what I originally believe high tech should feel like, at least for me.

How is technology helping us evolve music-making?

Paralocks: I think technology is definitely helping in a way that we have more tools than we used to. I don’t think it's really technology that’s making music better as much as knowledge being more available. For example, the Span analyzer was never used when I was making music before my break, which made tracks from different studios more inconsistent in terms of the balance of the mids, highs, and everything else. Even tracks from the same artist were less consistent, as everyone was only using their ears before, and it was hard to balance everything out to sound uniform.

But yeah, technology, like since Serum, Vital became available, is definitely helping the evolution of music. Other than that, I’m quite old school in that I don’t like to just use every VST out there. I feel that I could be making the same music I’m making now with technology from ten, maybe fifteen years ago. I think it's more the knowledge that’s being widely spread that’s helping the evolution of music more than the technology itself. But, of course, having certain tools developed and more accessible helps. So, knowledge over technology, I would say.

What were the difficulties you faced when you started making music?

Paralocks: I can answer this in two ways: from when I really started in 2007 and from when I restarted in 2023. Let’s start with the beginning:

The biggest challenges I had were a lack of good information, a lack of understanding sound in general, and a lack of thinking about things fundamentally, like with waveforms, balance, and phase. I didn’t have any of that information.

My setup was also challenging. I was using an old Sanyo Hi-Fi when I first started making music, and the speaker placement was just randomly put in my room. So, making something and knowing that it sounds good across all audio devices was definitely a challenge. I also struggled with synthesis, creating sounds from scratch, and understanding what I was doing instead of just twisting random knobs to see what happens.

Another problem I had was with the flow of the track—not really understanding how to start, progress, get to a point, or make a complete story out of a track. I was focusing more on the shorter time frames and not looking at the bigger picture when making music.

The levels were another struggle. My first few tracks were inconsistent because I didn’t know much about audio, and I would try to make everything loud, leading to clipping. This was in the days when clipping really made a difference because we used to write the music to CD, and it would actually clip on the CD. Now, with digital audio, clipping is still important, but you have 6 dB on top of the master channel. That was my first experience when I started making music.

My challenges when I started making music again in 2023., I first started just using headphones to see if I was still interested in it. To see if I was enjoying it before dedicating to setting up a whole studio and everything. Headphones, unless you have really good tools or reference, can sound great, but they won’t always translate well to other systems.

The tracks I made on headphones were just a way for me to see if I was still interested in making music at all. I then set up a full studio, treated it, and everything like that.

Then I started making music with new techniques that have come around since I stopped. That includes using Kick2 to synthesize kicks, phase-aligning kicks, working with SPAN, and working with certain balances. It took me a while to find a way to make the kick and bass work properly together.

Before, we used to just use a sample across every track and were more just listening to things rather than analyzing with oscilloscopes and aligning phase and everything. Some of the old tracks could have been better with these tools. But at the same time, we managed just by using our ears and somehow making it work.

The biggest challenge was remembering everything I had forgotten—not just technical knowledge, but getting back into a workflow and finding my style again, which was really hard. I don’t think my music now sounds exactly like it did before. It’s different, with a different energy. I think my music now is a bit more mature—not so chaotic and random—but I think the quality is now technically on a better level after six months to a year of fine-tuning new techniques for bass and mixdowns.

What are the biggest challenges of producing Hi-tech, considering its fast and dynamic nature?

Paralocks: One of the biggest challenges with high BPM Psy Trance is definitely the kick and bass. Creating a kick that still has sub-bass, creating notes that don’t overlap or cause phase cancellation, is a big challenge. With a slower track at 145 or 150 BPM, the 16th bass notes have space between them, and the wave resolves between each note. With high BPM, the wave doesn’t necessarily complete its full cycle before the next note plays.

Overcoming that and finding keys that work for your BPM is challenging. Creating kicks that are present without ducking the bass too much is important. There are techniques that work well, which you can find in the course. Coming up with new ways of doing things can also be challenging. After getting used to a workflow, breaking out of it is difficult. It’s easy to get caught up in the track and not listen objectively because there’s so much going on. Stepping back to listen to the whole track is super important.

Another challenge is the general balance and mix of the track. For some reason, in normal Psy Trance, you can have your kick and bass two to three dB higher than the percussion and still have the sounds come through and be present in the mix. With high BPM production, if the bass is too high above the rest, it can become muddy, and the other sounds get lost. I’m not sure of the exact reason, but I find it challenging to make sounds present without pushing them too much or spiking the frequency spectrum.

There’s no real standard for how everyone is doing this. I’ve decided to make my songs or mixdowns basically flat on SPAN, which keeps it nicely balanced. For the mastering process, it’s easier to cut and boost parts of the frequency spectrum for the mastering engineer. That’s a few of the challenges with Hi-Tech.

What would you like to see from students when they take part in the course?

Paralocks: I’ve done a few courses before, and the biggest surprise for students was realizing that there’s no big secret or special technique. Everything I do is very simple and straightforward. I believe less is more. Working with what you have and just using your ears intuition is the best technique I can suggest.

I hope students will gain some knowledge and techniques, and use these in a way that allows them to express themselves freely. The goal is for them not to get too caught up in production details, so they can use it as a tool to create music and express themselves.

It’s a great feeling because that’s really what it’s all about. It’s not about making the cleanest kick or the most balanced bass. To an extent, that stuff’s important, but it’s ultimately just a tool to create music. I hope students gain a bigger toolkit and feel less worry or stress about technical aspects, allowing them to produce naturally without overthinking.

As far as prior knowledge, I’d say it would definitely help if you’ve made a few tracks or at least started a few. You should be familiar with your digital audio workstation. I’m using Cubase, though I know it’s becoming less popular, but you can do 99% of these techniques in any DAW.

If you’re using Ableton, Logic, FL Studio, or Bitwig, you should be able to recreate the techniques I’m demonstrating. Just be familiar with your DAW, comfortable with shortcuts, aware of how everything is set up and works. Having some experience making tracks and sounds, and understanding the basics of synthesizers, would be beneficial.

The more experience you have, the more you’ll get out of the course because it’ll be easier to digest. But I also break down every single step, from a blank project to a somewhat finished track. My biggest hope is that students gain ease in production and feel more relaxed while creating so they can truly express what they’re trying to put out.