# The Recording Thread



## blues_n_cues

since we don't have a sub forum for it.
questions,answers,tips,tricks,techniques,gear? 
post 'em up.


----------



## SteFowkes

A sub forum for this topic would be great. Or put this as a Sticky.

I don't have many tips to give as I'm a total novice. Haha


----------



## Barfly

I think unrelated to knob twisting but that I am finding [finally] the importance of.. is patience. Up until recently I'd write a song, arrange it.. change things. Then I'd go in and quickly lay it down to "tape." 

I'd do bass to a click (I am weak at bass) and if there was something not quite right I'd say, "F" it after a couple of attempts to nail it. Same with guitar parts, synth or solos. 

When I'd listen later I'd be like, hot damn, you are one lazy mother-fookahlicious dude. They (errors) stand out no matter how small and the going back later never seems to materialize.

Now if it takes me 666 takes I will try and make that devil do what I say. At the end of the day something might still squeak by due to me playing to a click and not the actual drums. Maybe clicks work for you, not for me though. I like the actual drum parts. My boy (bassist) told me he's done it and there is a lot of wiggle room still for timing errors using a click.

The other part of patience I am still working on is: I try to get the best sound per instrument that I can squeeze out right now. Get the best you can. I record dry and then mess with effects later. 

I would initially say "F" it, I will go back in later and redo with better guitar tone, bass tone.. etc. and I really fugged a song up this way when a singer I don't have a lot of access to did a killer sexy job on a song I was like, let me hurry thru this so she can do her thing. She was awesome, me, not so much. LoL. I guess to sum up:

Take your time, get the best sound and performance you can get right now. It'll give you a solid foundation to build on.


----------



## blues_n_cues

I can relate. the way I usually do bass is to lay it down then after I do the drum parts go back & redo the bass to fit w/ fills/rolls/accents etc.

my main problem right now is I have too many projects going @ once & a few things are bleeding over from project to project making them too similar.


----------



## SmokeyDopey

Recent (personal) experience showed me that the most versatile combo in mic/preamp is a Sennheiser MD441 and API 512.

With a SM57 it will be cheaper, and its still a good mic, but the 441 is flatter, and can almost touch condenser territory. Great mic and pre amp.


----------



## Ghostman

I'd love to have a dedicated "Recording" subforum. It's been asked for before and hailed by many to be a great idea. 

But deleting old threads seems to be a priority. 

What is everyone's general recording process? Such as what do you record first?

Drums?
Bass?
Guitar?

I've heard many MANY times that drums and bass are always laid first. I've had a hard time actually putting a song together from some of the riffs I've come up with. No idea how to proceed without a drummer/bass player and/or instruments to cover these.


----------



## 12barjunkie

Great thread  I second the notion for a sticky! Glad to be a part of it too, cuz I'm really getting serious about recording now. The cool thing is, everyone here is cool and not (for the most part) cork sniffers and all that. 
I've been recording for years now and I've finally got a good foundation I believe as far as knowledge/experience.

I am right on the verge of getting one really good preamp. I will probably never record more than two tracks at once, so a single or dual channel pre would be just fine.

Right now, I'm eyeballing the FMR RNP, Golden Age 73, or the Warm Audio WA 12. I know the Great River ME 1NV is awesome, but I'm not sure if I am or ever will be, in THAT league


----------



## poeman33

Stuck  (at least if I did it right...it's my first sticky)

Question:
I used to record with a Presonus Inspire 1394. Easy to use, and it sounded great.
With the new computer...the interface would work, but the software wouldn't...so I figured it was time for a new interface anyway.
I got the Steinberg UR22. Spec wise...the preamps are way more sensitive and have a wider dynamic range. But when you record at the same levels...keeping everything out of the red...it sounds much quieter and nowhere near as full. Nice and crisp, but not as much balls. Anyone know why, and what I can do about that?


----------



## Frodebro

Ghostman said:


> I'd love to have a dedicated "Recording" subforum. It's been asked for before and hailed by many to be a great idea.
> 
> But deleting old threads seems to be a priority.
> 
> What is everyone's general recording process? Such as what do you record first?
> 
> Drums?
> Bass?
> Guitar?
> 
> I've heard many MANY times that drums and bass are always laid first. I've had a hard time actually putting a song together from some of the riffs I've come up with. No idea how to proceed without a drummer/bass player and/or instruments to cover these.



I used to always start with a complete drum track back in the days of analog recording (four tracks and eight tracks in my case), then lay down the rhythm tracks (all the way through in one pass), bass (again one pass from start to finish), then leads and 'noodley bits' last.

With DAWs, I no longer have those limitations. I'll often do songs in 'blocks,' where I'll get all the parts done for the intro, then move on to the next section, and so on.

As far as timing discrepancies, most of the major DAWs have the capability to correct timing issues by moving the waveforms around. This is a more advanced function than the basic "arm track, set levels, hit record" approach, but it becomes second nature once you get used to it, and it makes for a much more solid foundation to build on.

Equalization: The High Pass filter is your best friend. Learn how to use it, and you'll eliminate most of the mud in your mix, the bass and kick drum will punch through cleanly, and you'll have much fewer problems with overall headroom.


----------



## Frodebro

poeman33 said:


> Stuck  (at least if I did it right...it's my first sticky)
> 
> Question:
> I used to record with a Presonus Inspire 1394. Easy to use, and it sounded great.
> With the new computer...the interface would work, but the software wouldn't...so I figured it was time for a new interface anyway.
> I got the Steinberg UR22. Spec wise...the preamps are way more sensitive and have a wider dynamic range. But when you record at the same levels...keeping everything out of the red...it sounds much quieter and nowhere near as full. Nice and crisp, but not as much balls. Anyone know why, and what I can do about that?



The rule of analog (where I started years ago) was to run everything as hot as possible to keep the S/N level as strong as possible, but digital doesn't have this problem. 

It is actually better to run your tracks on the cold side (I use gain plugins on every track that are set initially to -6dB, which allows me to keep the actual track faders all at zero-this make volume automations much easier to deal with).

The lower track levels will make sure you don't have any headroom issues as your project grows, but the lower overall volume will appear to have less balls. To get those balls back, use a gain plugin on your output bus to kick the levels back up at the very end of the chain. That way you're not piling too much gain up over the course of your project, which can be a grade-A bee-otch to deal with if something starts clipping in the middle of the chain.


----------



## poeman33

Frodebro said:


> The rule of analog (where I started years ago) was to run everything as hot as possible to keep the S/N level as strong as possible, but digital doesn't have this problem.
> 
> It is actually better to run your tracks on the cold side (I use gain plugins on every track that are set initially to -6dB, which allows me to keep the actual track faders all at zero-this make volume automations much easier to deal with).
> 
> The lower track levels will make sure you don't have any headroom issues as your project grows, but the lower overall volume will appear to have less balls. To get those balls back, use a gain plugin on your output bus to kick the levels back up at the very end of the chain. That way you're not piling too much gain up over the course of your project, which can be a grade-A bee-otch to deal with if something starts clipping in the middle of the chain.



Thanks. I tried one of those but it seemed to distort things when it boosted. It as called "volume eleven". What do you use?


----------



## Frodebro

poeman33 said:


> Thanks. I tried one of those but it seemed to distort things when it boosted. It as called "volume eleven". What do you use?



I just use the stock gain plugin that came with my DAW (Logic). 

If you're having clipping issues on the two bus with the gain plugin, try just kicking up the volume level of your actual monitors. 

I generally mix everything to where my output bus level is still well below zero dB, and then bring it up to just below zero with the final gain plugin. My mixes come out slightly quieter than most newer commercial CDs, but that's because most modern music is brickwall limited at the mastering stage to compete in the stupid volume wars (at the cost of dynamic range). My older CDs (mastered in the eighties) are at about the same volume level as the stuff I'm doing myself.


----------



## JimiRules

Frodebro said:


> I just use the stock gain plugin that came with my DAW (Logic).
> 
> If you're having clipping issues on the two bus with the gain plugin, try just kicking up the volume level of your actual monitors.
> 
> I generally mix everything to where my output bus level is still well below zero dB, and then bring it up to just below zero with the final gain plugin. My mixes come out slightly quieter than most newer commercial CDs, but that's because most modern music is brickwall limited at the mastering stage to compete in the stupid volume wars (at the cost of dynamic range). My older CDs (mastered in the eighties) are at about the same volume level as the stuff I'm doing myself.



I do this using the master limiter plugin on Mixcraft. I remember somebody here giving me the advice of recording and mixing things on the quiet side and then raising the levels with a limiter. It may have been you. It works wonders for having a consistent volume on every song.

My big thing is coming up with what I think is a good mix, but then when you listen to it on a different sound system it sounds nothing like it did when you mixed it. I had that problem the last time I tried recording. Everything sounded good through the monitors I was using, but then when I finalized everything and listened to it on a CD in my car all the bass was gone. Pretty frustrating.


----------



## Rolandj00

I use a MOTU 8 pre for my interface, its pretty cool and easy to use. One of the first things I learned about mixing was that although it is a good idea to not wake the rest of the house while doin late night recordings,trying to mix in headphones doesn't work for me, the bass signals always sound great in the phones but are not as fat in the mix when put through most other playback systems without a sub. And I gotta have the low end. Mixing/levels is an art form that I am not sure I will ever be consistant at,, frustrating at times but for the most I learn something new every time.


----------



## Frodebro

Rolandj00 said:


> I use a MOTU 8 pre for my interface, its pretty cool and easy to use. One of the first things I learned about mixing was that although it is a good idea to not wake the rest of the house while doin late night recordings,trying to mix in headphones doesn't work for me, the bass signals always sound great in the phones but are not as fat in the mix when put through most other playback systems without a sub. And I gotta have the low end. Mixing/levels is an art form that I am not sure I will ever be consistant at,, frustrating at times but for the most I learn something new every time.



I was having the same issues with mixes as well, I had my subwoofer turned up just a little too much, so it was giving me a false representation of what was actually going on. I now have everything dialed in pretty well so that it sounds good through headphones, the monitors and sub, my laptops internal speakers, in my car, and through my phone with earbuds. A bit more acoustic treatment in the cave is still needed, but I'm used to the room now so I know how to work with it.


----------



## shredless

I would use a drum machine, then guitar, bass, vocals, then fill in leads

I use the same approach with a DAW, try to get it all in one take, unless there are clear break areas. Im using drum loops now

I am suffering from ADD at the moment as far as getting anything completed. The first few songs I ever did just came together and I was driven to get them done...nowdays I just hate it all and cant seem to finish anything

at the moment I use acid as a sequencer....lay a solid steady drum track. Import to pro tools....put guitar on it. 

Well, thats what I just started doing...haven't completed anything yet

my goal is to send the guitar n maybe vocals back to acid, and revamp the drums to add fills. Then its hopefully dropping the new drums back in PT and it all syncs......????

I dont think I have enough CPU to run a drum plug in in pro tools...and I surely dont have the patience to learn one

Im really hoping to finish something soon...I have friends that just heard my old stuff and want a CD now....I need to get a few new songs done. I just cant seem to find the drive to get to it


----------



## shredless

I think this sticky is a good idea

I was just about to come ask some questions and this is the perfect place

Im interested in buying some plug ins,

easy to use drums and a great sounding guitar amp plug in
micing my amps is annoying


----------



## Frodebro

shredless said:


> I think this sticky is a good idea
> 
> I was just about to come ask some questions and this is the perfect place
> 
> Im interested in buying some plug ins,
> 
> easy to use drums and a great sounding guitar amp plug in
> micing my amps is annoying



I can recommend Scuffham S-Gear all day long. Great, great amp sims, and not expensive at all. The only drum software I have experience with is BFD2 and BFD3, and the learning curve is a f***ing cow. It took me forever to get comfortable working with it. I've heard good things about EZ Drummer, though.


----------



## ricksteruk

Great idea for a sticky if not a sub forum.. great to read what's here already.

If I've got a band ready to record (as in they / we already know how to play the tune) - then I really like to record drums bass guitar and guide vocals all live - with or without click track depending if it's necessary... Editing is much easier with a click track!

I have set up click tracks in the past that have speeded up and slowed down by 1 or 2bpm for verses / choruses as the song went through so that the live band could play the song to the click exactly the same way they do it live. Tricky - but it makes editing easier later.

If I'm using recording as an aid to composition then I'll lay down first whatever comes to me first!! If it was a guitar riff, or a bass groove or even a melody I'll stick that down and then see what happens when I pick up a different instrument.

I agree with Barfly in post 3 that it's a good idea to get the idea down as well as you possibly can at that moment. If you know you could have got the timing better - redo it. If you know the tone could have been better - redo it! Once you start building on something with crappy timing it can mess up the whole feel of the tune when you replace it.


----------



## blues_n_cues

poeman33 said:


> Thanks. I tried one of those but it seemed to distort things when it boosted. It as called "volume eleven". What do you use?



my interface (M-Audio c400) has a pretty loud output as-is. it can distort the speakers in my AKG K240 phones.

if it's not loud enough you can get a headphone amp. your headphone may be the issue too.

Levels-
I do everything @ -6 to -9 and keep the Master @ -3 to -6 so there's plenty of headroom for Mastering. 
depending on what software you use for CD burning some have track levelling so it doesn't matter what each individual song ends up @ volume wise.


writing & recording-
I do a bass drum or bass drum & loose high hat click track depending on the song.
keys if any
guitar parts first with leads or @ least a scratch lead.
after that is bass then drums last & go back & fit certain bass parts to the drum fills better.
then comes vocals (when possible)
finally last,polish up the guitar leads & harmonies and maybe add some keys/string beds depending on the song.


----------



## blues_n_cues

Frodebro said:


> I was having the same issues with mixes as well, I had my subwoofer turned up just a little too much, so it was giving me a false representation of what was actually going on. I now have everything dialed in pretty well so that it sounds good through headphones, the monitors and sub, my laptops internal speakers, in my car, and through my phone with earbuds. A bit more acoustic treatment in the cave is still needed, but I'm used to the room now so I know how to work with it.



yep.monitors *can* be misleading on the bass & so can semi-open phones.
I just got used to the bass rig I'm using & visual metering compared to everything else. w/ the KRK 8's it may seem like I went to heavy on bass compared to what's coming through the phones but when I get it to the truck it's good. if it's a lil' heavy that's ok,that's the modern style & chicks dig it-for reasons we all know(lol).


----------



## bulldozer1984

poeman33 said:


> Stuck  (at least if I did it right...it's my first sticky)
> 
> Question:
> I used to record with a Presonus Inspire 1394. Easy to use, and it sounded great.
> With the new computer...the interface would work, but the software wouldn't...so I figured it was time for a new interface anyway.
> I got the Steinberg UR22. Spec wise...the preamps are way more sensitive and have a wider dynamic range. But when you record at the same levels...keeping everything out of the red...it sounds much quieter and nowhere near as full. Nice and crisp, but not as much balls. Anyone know why, and what I can do about that?



What might be happening is that the UR22 is not driving the DAW's Virtual Inputs as hard.. 

The easiest way to check is to the check the input level on the DAW.. 

Being digital, of course, none of this really matters as you should record at around -12 if you are recording multiple instruments.. This gives you plenty of headroom as when you start EQ'ing/compressing etc the levels will rise to about -6 which is perfect for mastering.


----------



## bulldozer1984

Frodebro said:


> I just use the stock gain plugin that came with my DAW (Logic).
> 
> If you're having clipping issues on the two bus with the gain plugin, try just kicking up the volume level of your actual monitors.
> 
> I generally mix everything to where my output bus level is still well below zero dB, and then bring it up to just below zero with the final gain plugin. My mixes come out slightly quieter than most newer commercial CDs, but that's because most modern music is brickwall limited at the mastering stage to compete in the stupid volume wars (at the cost of dynamic range). My older CDs (mastered in the eighties) are at about the same volume level as the stuff I'm doing myself.



Not just that, they push the signal really hard through their expensive AD converters - which actually clips the signal. A brickwall limiter would "pump" if you were to try and do it with instead..


----------



## 12barjunkie

shredless said:


> I think this sticky is a good idea
> 
> I was just about to come ask some questions and this is the perfect place
> 
> Im interested in buying some plug ins,
> 
> easy to use drums and a great sounding guitar amp plug in
> micing my amps is annoying



I use Kitcore/ Drumcore as a drum plugin module. Very basic, very low cpu usage and great sounds. As far as Amp sims, S Gear IS awesome, I just don't have the processing power to utilize any of the new stuff like that. Revalver and Softube amp room are a couple other good ones.


----------



## blues_n_cues

shredless said:


> I think this sticky is a good idea
> 
> I was just about to come ask some questions and this is the perfect place
> 
> Im interested in buying some plug ins,
> what kind of plug-ins?
> there's a lot of good freebies out there if you know where to look.
> 
> easy to use drums and a great sounding guitar amp plug in
> micing my amps is annoying



the drums & ShredAmp sims in Mixcraft work fine for me. 
I thought about buying drum vsts but w/ a little creative compression,eq,& mixing/matching parts of different kits I can do the same thing for a lot less $$$

the ShredAmp has quite a few different amps & I've written a couple presets that are exact copies of my JMP-1 w/out the noise.

if you go the that route you can always use those then ReWire another DAW that you may like better.
ReWire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but that's just me..


----------



## blues_n_cues

poeman33 said:


> Stuck  (at least if I did it right...it's my first sticky)
> 
> Question:
> I used to record with a Presonus Inspire 1394. Easy to use, and it sounded great.
> With the new computer...the interface would work, but the software wouldn't...so I figured it was time for a new interface anyway.
> I got the Steinberg UR22. Spec wise...the preamps are way more sensitive and have a wider dynamic range. But when you record at the same levels...keeping everything out of the red...it sounds much quieter and nowhere near as full. Nice and crisp, but not as much balls. Anyone know why, and what I can do about that?



here ya go Poe-
Gain Staging In Your DAW Software

Level Meters

Stop Recording So Hot Into Your DAW | The Recording Revolution

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MqjPA5eOU4[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJ7zZbp5YB4[/ame]


----------



## poeman33

blues_n_cues said:


> here ya go Poe-
> Gain Staging In Your DAW Software
> 
> Level Meters
> 
> Stop Recording So Hot Into Your DAW | The Recording Revolution
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MqjPA5eOU4
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJ7zZbp5YB4



Thanks Blues. I actually have been doing all of that. I keep it around -6 when recording, and bump up when mixing but never let it get into the red there either. I've experimented with compressing and/or limiting the final mix. It just doesn't have the balls. It's not too bad...just not the same. But I will check on that second link about changing the meters...that looks like a good idea. On the UR22 all you get is a red light when it goes over...so you really have no idea how hot or how low the actual level is. I need a tube preamp, but it's just not in the budget.


----------



## minerman

Cool!!! I was wondering when we were gonna get a sub-forum for recording, but this sticky will work for now....


When I do my songs, I'll come up with a riff & take it from there....Adding parts to it, with vocals until I think it's "enough"...Of course, you have to have the bpm already for the song in the daw, so my next thing is to program the drums....This is a bitch for me, as I'm so picky, & try my best to get 'em to sound as real as possible....Jamstix helps a lot, but I'm gonna get an e-kit before long so I can just play my drum parts how I hear 'em in my head, instead of trying to get the software to do what I want....So, my workflow goes:

Drums (always first, this is your timing for the song, all the other instruments need to play to the drums for timing purposes...)

Rhythm Guitars 

Bass

Keys (if there are any)

Vocals/Lead Instruments

Mix/Master

When I record, I try to get my signal at around -12 on the meters, with the peaks hitting around -6....I try to never let them go any higher than -6 to prevent clipping....

When I'm mixing, I start with the drums & bass, then add guitars, keys, then the vocals, but I try to make sure I have plenty of headroom from the very beginning so I don't clip my master as the tracks add up....

For me, the trick to get my songs sounding ok on different systems ('phones, monitors, cd players, boom boxes, etc), is just to keep burning cd's of my mixes, listening to 'em on as many different sources as possible, & taking notes (actually write 'em down) about what each song/mix needs on different systems....I know it's a lot of trial/error, but once you learn your systems/sources, it's much easier & faster....

For drum sounds I use Superior Drummer (with EZ Drummer & SDX expansions), Abbey Road 80's & Modern Drums, with Steven Slate Drums Platinum 3.5 most of the time....I use Jamstix 3 for the programming/MIDI, but again, I'm considering a cheap e-kit to just play my parts instead of programming 'em....

My interface is a Native Instruments Komplete Audio 6, just a standard, run-of-the-mill 2-mic pre interface....

The mics I use are: SM57, Sennheiser e609, Behringer C1, Samson C01, & a Carvin CTM100...

I use my real amps for my final tracks, but will use an ampsim (or even the 1w amp through the ISO cab) to record di's for re-amping later...

Something I've learned about the ampsims/modelers is they've got great fx, & they work pretty good on a track of a real amp/cab, but you've gotta play with the levels of the effects so they don't "take over" the sound of the real amp....

I'm no professional at all, just a hack really, but I've been recording for about 5 years now, & have learned lots since I first started....

Keep the thread going guys!!!


----------



## StratoMarshall

JimiRules said:


> I do this using the master limiter plugin on Mixcraft. I remember somebody here giving me the advice of recording and mixing things on the quiet side and then raising the levels with a limiter. It may have been you. It works wonders for having a consistent volume on every song.
> 
> My big thing is coming up with what I think is a good mix, but then when you listen to it on a different sound system it sounds nothing like it did when you mixed it. I had that problem the last time I tried recording. Everything sounded good through the monitors I was using, but then when I finalized everything and listened to it on a CD in my car all the bass was gone. Pretty frustrating.


If you have reasonably flat reference monitors that are properly eq'd in your room and do all of your mixing at an 85db room reference level with NO SUB, you will find that your mixes will translate fairly accurately to most playback situations (car, earbuds, etc.) with very little tweaking required.


----------



## Coronado

blues_n_cues said:


> since we don't have a sub forum for it.
> questions,answers,tips,tricks,techniques,gear?
> post 'em up.


 
This is a great idea Blues! Looking forward to hearing/learning how others do it. I dont gig (wish I could) so I pretty much spend most of my time recording stuff (or trying to record something decent, that is...).


----------



## blues_n_cues

Coronado said:


> This is a great idea Blues! Looking forward to hearing/learning how others do it. I dont gig (wish I could) so I pretty much spend most of my time recording stuff (or trying to record something decent, that is...).



I spend most of my time recording now. 
unlike a band-no 3am driving after a long gig,no scheduling worries,noone pawning off the gear,no drinking or drug problems,no arguing over who plays what how,& I have total control over production.

the "ol' lady" thing still gets in the way on occasion though.


----------



## blues_n_cues

recording & track sheets PDFs-
http://www.soundcurrent.com/Session-Doc.pdf

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/att...ct-some-good-recall-sheets-24-track-sheet.jpg

http://www.audio-production-tips.com/images/tracksheet.jpg

https://www.google.com/search?q=rec...otes-the-audio-production-notebook%2F;500;318


----------



## Australian

Is anyone here using a Motu828x ThunderBolt?

I'm tossing up between one of them or a UAudio Apollo Quad TB.
The Apollo is $2000 more , so I'd like to get the Motu if its going to sound as good. I have a Motu Ultralite 3 at the moment, so wouldn't mind staying with Motu.


----------



## blues_n_cues

Australian said:


> Is anyone here using a Motu828x ThunderBolt?
> 
> I'm tossing up between one of them or a UAudio Apollo Quad TB.
> The Apollo is $2000 more , so I'd like to get the Motu if its going to sound as good. I have a Motu Ultralite 3 at the moment, so wouldn't mind staying with Motu.



no, but to be honest,unless you are doing a lot of video & full movie production or major studio orchestration Thunderbolt is kind of overkill for home to semi-Pro audio production.

Firewire should be the most you need.

those Apollo units are nice but the couple of guys I know that had them ditched them because you almost need an M.I.T. degree just to get through the manual.

but if you just want to spend the extra money......


----------



## Australian

blues_n_cues said:


> no, but to be honest,unless you are doing a lot of video & full movie production or major studio orchestration Thunderbolt is kind of overkill for home to semi-Pro audio production.
> 
> Firewire should be the most you need.
> 
> those Apollo units are nice but the couple of guys I know that had them ditched them because you almost need an M.I.T. degree just to get through the manual.
> 
> but if you just want to spend the extra money......




Yeah I'm sure TBolt is overkill. But the thing that concerns me is that as Mac Operating Systems keep advancing the older units like the Ultralite 3 Hybrid might stop updating drivers .

I'd like to just keep my Ultralite 3 and use it with a FWire/TBolt converter, but I don't think the drivers with that unit support my current OS-Yosemite.
I'm going to email them now about it.


----------



## blues_n_cues

Australian said:


> Yeah I'm sure TBolt is overkill. But the thing that concerns me is that as Mac Operating Systems keep advancing the older units like the Ultralite 3 Hybrid might stop updating drivers .
> 
> I'd like to just keep my Ultralite 3 and use it with a FWire/TBolt converter, but I don't think the drivers with that unit support my current OS-Yosemite.
> I'm going to email them now about it.



there's always (gasp) Windows.
besides,if you're not upgrading something every two years you're just being passe.


----------



## 12barjunkie

blues_n_cues said:


> recording & track sheets PDFs-
> http://www.soundcurrent.com/Session-Doc.pdf
> 
> https://www.gearslutz.com/board/att...ct-some-good-recall-sheets-24-track-sheet.jpg
> 
> http://www.audio-production-tips.com/images/tracksheet.jpg
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=rec...otes-the-audio-production-notebook%2F;500;318




Good idea, man. I learned my lesson the hard way yesterday...write everything down when working on a project. Spent several hours trying to replicate the tone from one project I recorded a while back.


----------



## blues_n_cues

12barjunkie said:


> Good idea, man. I learned my lesson the hard way yesterday...write everything down when working on a project. Spent several hours trying to replicate the tone from one project I recorded a while back.



I learned the hard way too.lol
I have a couple of large dry erase boards & use the digital camera to take shots of those & screen shots of FX plug-in settings.


----------



## 12barjunkie

I took a bunch of pictures yesterday too; the front of my amp; my pedalboard and my mic pre's so I could recall the settings. Wrote 'em down too in case something happens to the pics. 

I'm pretty sure The tone in question came from my (recently retired) Haze 40 and my custom 1x12 cab I made. I kept the cab because it has some mojo going on, but I'd like to get a "similar sounding" more reliable head to drive it.


----------



## ibmorjamn

blues_n_cues said:


> I spend most of my time recording now.
> unlike a band-no 3am driving after a long gig,no scheduling worries,noone pawning off the gear,no drinking or drug problems,no arguing over who plays what how,& I have total control over production.
> 
> the "ol' lady" thing still gets in the way on occasion though.



Ol Ladies are good , they do hinder music works at times. This will be an epic thread and I will be asking everything including what you had for breakfast !


----------



## 4Horseman

Happy New Year everyone. Great thread idea, Blues. 
Do any of you have tips for recording stereo cabs with different mics? I've been running two half stacks in stereo, I have one SM57 on one cab and an AT2035 condenser mic set back about 3-4 feet. I have 2 SM57's but my interface only has 2 XLR inputs, or I'd try using all three at once. Do you guys prefer putting condenser mics close to cabs, or setting them back and blending? It seems like setting it back gets some kind of reverb effect happening. Is this a mic placement issue, or just the way a condenser and dynamic mic blend together?


----------



## Frodebro

4Horseman said:


> Happy New Year everyone. Great thread idea, Blues.
> Do any of you have tips for recording stereo cabs with different mics? I've been running two half stacks in stereo, I have one SM57 on one cab and an AT2035 condenser mic set back about 3-4 feet. I have 2 SM57's but my interface only has 2 XLR inputs, or I'd try using all three at once. Do you guys prefer putting condenser mics close to cabs, or setting them back and blending? It seems like setting it back gets some kind of reverb effect happening. Is this a mic placement issue, or just the way a condenser and dynamic mic blend together?



The further back the mic is from the cab, the more it picks up the sound of the room as well as the speakers. If you have a room that sounds good this can be a great thing, but most of us that do this at home are using bedrooms or other smaller, rectangular rooms that can be a nightmare to get to sound decent due to all of the reflections bouncing around.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Frodebro said:


> The further back the mic is from the cab, the more it picks up the sound of the room as well as the speakers. If you have a room that sounds good this can be a great thing, but most of us that do this at home are using bedrooms or other smaller, rectangular rooms that can be a nightmare to get to sound decent due to all of the reflections bouncing around.


i've posted this before, in other threads, but I think that anyone wishing to learn mic'ing & room acoustics should read.

http://www.crownaudio.com/media/pdf/mics/127089.pdf

then there's this, when it comes to multiple mic's:

Stereo Microphone Techniques Explained, Part 1

Realize that waves of different frequencies travel differently. When you combine that w/ reflection & distance (between mic's) you get phasing & timing issues between the different mic's. When a single mic is used, the distance between the source sound & the addition of acoustic reflections can cause that in a single mic. 

To minimize this effect, it's best to have multiple mic's at the same axis point. The more spread between capsules, the more time/phase issues will be created. There are ways to use this for your advantage, but it will be an exercise of treating the room acoustically & then knowing how to do it & then how to put it into context by proper placement of sound source & capture points.

Many people like to record w/ as little coloration as possible, because it's easier to add reverb/delay & even phase, later in post process, rather than to record it & be stuck w/ it. Problem is... many don't really understand phase, time & distance enough to actually add it later, so, they just throw some reverb on it & call it good.

It you really want to get it down, read up on room acoustics & how to design a room for that purpose. Read the mic'ing studies on angles of reflection, time, space, phasing, etc. & then learn how to put it all together. That will be your best bet. Until you get that, it will be hard to understand the whats & whys of recording issues...

Here's an article that gives a simplified version of room acoustics (16 pages)

http://continuingeducation.construction.com/article.php?L=320&C=934

most sites seem like they are simply trying to sell you a product, but this one explains different environments, etc.


----------



## minerman

blues_n_cues said:


> I learned the hard way too.lol
> I have a couple of large dry erase boards & use the digital camera to take shots of those & screen shots of FX plug-in settings.



I use a vst notepad thing in Reaper for this, not sure if it'll work in other daw's but it's worth a shot...Just download, un-zip, & put it in your vst folder to find out....Works great for me in Reaper though, I use it all the time for amp settings, vocals/lyrics, basically everything....

VST Notepad

Screenshot of it in the first post here:

Track Notepad VST plug-in - Cockos Confederated Forums


----------



## 12barjunkie

minerman said:


> I use a vst notepad thing in Reaper for this, not sure if it'll work in other daw's but it's worth a shot...Just download, un-zip, & put it in your vst folder to find out....Works great for me in Reaper though, I use it all the time for amp settings, vocals/lyrics, basically everything....
> 
> VST Notepad
> 
> Screenshot of it in the first post here:
> 
> Track Notepad VST plug-in - Cockos Confederated Forums



Huh. That's pretty cool...and useful


----------



## Coronado

Ghostman said:


> I'd love to have a dedicated "Recording" subforum. It's been asked for before and hailed by many to be a great idea.
> 
> But deleting old threads seems to be a priority.
> 
> What is everyone's general recording process? Such as what do you record first?
> 
> Drums?
> Bass?
> Guitar?
> 
> I've heard many MANY times that drums and bass are always laid first. I've had a hard time actually putting a song together from some of the riffs I've come up with. No idea how to proceed without a drummer/bass player and/or instruments to cover these.


 
Digging this topic!! Thanks for making this a sticky!
I either start with a general guitar rhythm that I have in my head, or I play around with some EZ Drummer tracks until I find one that sticks. The cool thing with EZ Drummer is that you can sample some loops and then if you find one you like, you can pull it into song creator which helps you simply pull together the various parts of the song via loops (multiple verse, chorus, pre-chorus, fills (etc...) to drag into the overall drum track). For the last few weeks, Sweetwater has several different packages you can download for $39 bucks (regularly like $89). I just downloaded Rock/Metal and Blues, which really increased the selection of loops and tracks to choose from.

So far I am a fan of EZDrummer, but one drawback is the very large draw on the CPU (at times the clipping makes me want to toss the damn thing through the window...). I will eventually need to update my PC, but for now it does okay. I find that if you build the song first in EZ Drummer, I can then just drag it into Studio One and then build the other tracks (guitar, leads, bass, and (_yikes_!) _vocals_ around it). 

One of my issues was that I would come up with a cool riff that I wanted to build on, but then I would need to grab my phone and video it - often by the time I get that in the right angle and ready to go, I forget the damn guitar part! I recently picked up Electro Harmonix 360 Nano Looper. Now I just step on the looper if I want to quickly record something I like. I can either go back to it later, or I can loop it and then try some other guitar over it. Not a bad little effect, I hear there are better ones, but for me and what I need, it does the trick. 

I could go on and on, and I have a million questions for you guys, but I'll stop here so I don’t crash the server with my 4 page post! 


I'll end with a question: Once you have the song at a point you want to share it, how do you guys download it (cloud? disk?). And one last question - do you guys ever record video? I've seen some great quality sound videos, and some not so great ones. Any advice/experience on how to record a good sounding video? *Thanks!!*


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Record the audio & then add it to the video. The poor quality ones are where the video is turned on & the internal mic is recording the sound...

I use soundcloud to share sound samples...


----------



## Coronado

Dogs of Doom said:


> Record the audio & then add it to the video. The poor quality ones are where the video is turned on & the internal mic is recording the sound...





Dogs of Doom said:


> I use soundcloud to share sound samples...




Cool - thanks DoD! In the market to pick up a decent video recorder. Any favorites I can look into?

_Thanks again!_


----------



## Dogs of Doom

It depends on a few things...

price range?
how will you use it?
what will you use it for?


----------



## Australian

blues_n_cues said:


> there's always (gasp) Windows.
> besides,if you're not upgrading something every two years you're just being passe.



I just bought the UA Apollo Quad (thunderbolt). This should keep me happy for a few years and I couldn't resist having those great UAD plugins.


----------



## blues_n_cues

minerman said:


> I use a vst notepad thing in Reaper for this, not sure if it'll work in other daw's but it's worth a shot...Just download, un-zip, & put it in your vst folder to find out....Works great for me in Reaper though, I use it all the time for amp settings, vocals/lyrics, basically everything....
> 
> VST Notepad
> 
> Screenshot of it in the first post here:
> 
> Track Notepad VST plug-in - Cockos Confederated Forums



the problem is when a hard drive or MOBO dies & you don't have it down on paper. or you're "on location" & need the reference notes.


----------



## blues_n_cues

Coronado said:


> I'll end with a question: Once you have the song at a point you want to share it, how do you guys download it (cloud? disk?).
> I use SoundCloud since some phones/apps can't get SoundClick. I also use ReverbNation although it's a PITA & only takes MP3 uploads then kills the quality on those.
> 
> And one last question - do you guys ever record video? I've seen some great quality sound videos, and some not so great ones. Any advice/experience on how to record a good sounding video?



I've done a couple short vids,mostly the solo sections of songs.

the best way is to record the audio just like you normally would & record the video simultaneously. go into a DAW that does video editing too & first mute the video track. make sure things are synched & go from there.

if you need to reshoot some video then just do that while playing along with the original track.


----------



## poeman33

Coronado said:


> Cool - thanks DoD! In the market to pick up a decent video recorder. Any favorites I can look into?
> 
> _Thanks again!_



I just use an HD Webcam. Not that expensive, and do a pretty good job. If I am doing a demo of gear, then I will record live, used the interface as the sound source. If I am doing a video of a song. I add the recorded song as it's own audio track, and record the video to that. I've tried a few different programs, but ended up just using the stock Windows Movie maker. It works fine, but be warned it uses a lot or resources when rendering to the final product you will post.


----------



## Coronado

Dogs of Doom said:


> It depends on a few things...
> 
> price range?
> how will you use it?
> what will you use it for?


 
Thank You! For price, I guess I'm fairly flexible. This might be a strange way to equate it, but I would say along the same quallity lines as an SM57, M Audio BX5 monitor speakers, and a Sennheiser HD280 headphones range. Somehting that would fall within that range of quality. Nothing super fancy or professional, but that has a decent quality to it. 

I would use it primarily for recording videos of me and a buddy playing. I guess something to capture some of the good ol' days for when I'm too old to have this kind of fun.


----------



## Coronado

blues_n_cues said:


> I've done a couple short vids,mostly the solo sections of songs.
> 
> the best way is to record the audio just like you normally would & record the video simultaneously. go into a DAW that does video editing too & first mute the video track. make sure things are synched & go from there.
> 
> if you need to reshoot some video then just do that while playing along with the original track.


 

Excellent! Thanks Blues!! I believe I can use my Studio One to upload the video and then synch up the recorded tracks.


----------



## Coronado

poeman33 said:


> I just use an HD Webcam. Not that expensive, and do a pretty good job. If I am doing a demo of gear, then I will record live, used the interface as the sound source. If I am doing a video of a song. I add the recorded song as it's own audio track, and record the video to that. I've tried a few different programs, but ended up just using the stock Windows Movie maker. It works fine, but be warned it uses a lot or resources when rendering to the final product you will post.


 
Thanks Poeman - I'll have to give that a try as well. My current PC clips quite a bit from just EZ Drummer, so I'm betting the lights in the house will dim if I tried pulling that kind of CPU. I'll give our (older) camera a try, although I think it might be a bit dated at this point.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Coronado said:


> Thanks Poeman - I'll have to give that a try as well. My current PC clips quite a bit from just EZ Drummer, so I'm betting the lights in the house will dim if I tried pulling that kind of CPU. I'll give our (older) camera a try, although I think it might be a bit dated at this point.


If this works for you, you might just add a few bucks for lighting. The more room light, the better the image quality will be. Learning light, is like learning mic's. You deal w/ angles, reflection, etc. When you have more than enough light, turn down the light in the camera. Make sure the light is adjustable in the camera...


----------



## johnfv

Dogs of Doom said:


> ...then there's this, when it comes to multiple mic's...


Some good points and articles Dogs. Here is one more that talks more specifically about phase and in particular phase when using multiple mics on a single source.
Phase Demystified


----------



## scat7s

Barfly said:


> I think unrelated to knob twisting but that I am finding [finally] the importance of.. is patience. Up until recently I'd write a song, arrange it.. change things. Then I'd go in and quickly lay it down to "tape."
> 
> I'd do bass to a click (I am weak at bass) and if there was something not quite right I'd say, "F" it after a couple of attempts to nail it. Same with guitar parts, synth or solos.
> 
> When I'd listen later I'd be like, hot damn, you are one lazy mother-fookahlicious dude. They (errors) stand out no matter how small and the going back later never seems to materialize.
> 
> Now if it takes me 666 takes I will try and make that devil do what I say. At the end of the day something might still squeak by due to me playing to a click and not the actual drums. Maybe clicks work for you, not for me though. I like the actual drum parts. My boy (bassist) told me he's done it and there is a lot of wiggle room still for timing errors using a click.
> 
> The other part of patience I am still working on is: I try to get the best sound per instrument that I can squeeze out right now. Get the best you can. I record dry and then mess with effects later.
> 
> I would initially say "F" it, I will go back in later and redo with better guitar tone, bass tone.. etc. and I really fugged a song up this way when a singer I don't have a lot of access to did a killer sexy job on a song I was like, let me hurry thru this so she can do her thing. She was awesome, me, not so much. LoL. I guess to sum up:
> 
> Take your time, get the best sound and performance you can get right now. It'll give you a solid foundation to build on.



this is me too. 

I get an idea im hot on, all I want to do is get it down onto a media and let the creative process work itself out. 

inevitably at some point I realize, 'this shit is too sloppy' 

I always intend to revisit once my ideas have been fleshed out and do a "proper" version. I almost never go back and redo it proper. by this time ive been obsessing on this song idea for 3 or 4 weeks and am in full burnout mode. I eventually talk myself into "f*ck it, its a rough demo...it gets the point across even if its not a great performance/mix/engineering job"

ive finally abandoned the tape machines and am on the computer, which allows me to put together a reasonably tight performance without having to spend 3 months practicing all of my bits and parts...and being able to play them in sequence with flawless transitions from part to part. 

working in sections allows one to move quickly, while the ideas are still somewhat fresh, without having to spend all of the hours practicing parts/transitions. 

to me its pointless to learn all of my parts start to finish for any given song since theres a very good chance the song will never be performed live anyway. and if it does ever see the light of day....that's what rehearsal is for right? 

I used to get a little hung up on recording in sections...it felt like cheating. but the simple truth is, there aren't enough hours in the day for most of us (edit:me) to do all of the things that should be done if you (edit: I) want a nice tight recording, and you (edit: I) want to do it honest.

im liberated. im free. and hopefully I can start building some nice sounding recordings with a faster turnaround.


----------



## blues_n_cues

scat7s said:


> this is me too.
> 
> I get an idea im hot on, all I want to do is get it down onto a media and let the creative process work itself out.
> 
> inevitably at some point I realize, 'this shit is too sloppy'
> 
> I always intend to revisit once my ideas have been fleshed out and do a "proper" version. I almost never go back and redo it proper.



and then there's just our own perfectionism,OCD,or whatever you choose to call it. 
there's times I'll go back & overdub a manually doubled or tripled lead bend or squeal 15x to get it just perfect when in reality a non-guitar playing stranger listening for the first time in real time either won't hear it or G.A.F. anyway.


----------



## johnfv

blues_n_cues said:


> ...when in reality a non-guitar playing stranger listening for the first time in real time either won't hear it or G.A.F. anyway.


And here's the thing: those classic albums we all love from the late '60s and early '70s - plenty of "less than perfect" parts. I dare say the fvckups are part of the magic. The autotuned, snap to grid tempos, over produced and pieced together crap made these days it not what I want. Put some people together in a room and play.

I've posted this before, this is a slightly updated mix of this old Robert Plant song. This is 100% live in my buddy Brian's garage, 5 guys sitting around trying to play a song we barely know. Far from perfect but there was a vibe captured:
http://johnviehweg.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Big-Log-tweaks-12-22-14-v3.mp3
http://johnviehweg.com/wordpress/?p=401

I happened to have a web cam going while we recorded, most of us are off camera. 5 guys in a garage:
http://vimeo.com/58055557


----------



## scat7s

yes, perfect is annoying. but bad is just unacceptable.


----------



## Australian

What do you guys average in latency?
With my other older interface- Motu ultralite 3 firewire I get 6 ms latency.
With my new Apollo Quad thunderbolt I'll get sub 2ms. Thats going to be a noticeable difference.


----------



## blues_n_cues

Australian said:


> What do you guys average in latency?
> With my other older interface- Motu ultralite 3 firewire I get 6 ms latency.
> With my new Apollo Quad thunderbolt I'll get sub 2ms. Thats going to be a noticeable difference.



around 5ms but it really depends on sample rate,buffer settings,RAM,& CPU usage which depends on # of plug-ins,virtual instruments,etc.etc..

in other words it changes from song to song on my system.

this article might help to understand it better-
Optimising The Latency Of Your PC Audio Interface


----------



## blues_n_cues

johnfv said:


> And here's the thing: those classic albums we all love from the late '60s and early '70s - plenty of "less than perfect" parts. I dare say the fvckups are part of the magic. The autotuned, snap to grid tempos, over produced and pieced together crap made these days it not what I want. Put some people together in a room and play.
> 
> I've posted this before, this is a slightly updated mix of this old Robert Plant song. This is 100% live in my buddy Brian's garage, 5 guys sitting around trying to play a song we barely know. Far from perfect but there was a vibe captured:
> http://johnviehweg.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Big-Log-tweaks-12-22-14-v3.mp3
> Big Log | John Viehweg
> 
> I happened to have a web cam going while we recorded, most of us are off camera. 5 guys in a garage:
> BigLogSnip on Vimeo



true. 
if you listen to even the best players' iso tracks there's some scary stuff in there even though a lot of it is covered up by the full mix.
I posted this thread w/ a couple of my own a while back to highlight the point-
http://www.marshallforum.com/cellar/74610-laying-bare-iso-track-fun.html

if you notice,there's some "noise" on the tracks. sometimes the hum or other ambient noise also helps fill out a mix,it adds "warmth" or "filler" to a mix.
just think Analog tape days.


----------



## Bflat5

blues_n_cues said:


> true.
> if you listen to even the best players' iso tracks there's some scary stuff in there even though a lot of it is covered up by the full mix.
> I posted this thread w/ a couple of my own a while back to highlight the point-
> http://www.marshallforum.com/cellar/74610-laying-bare-iso-track-fun.html
> 
> if you notice,there's some "noise" on the tracks. sometimes the hum or other ambient noise also helps fill out a mix,it adds "warmth" or "filler" to a mix.
> just think Analog tape days.




The only iso tracks I've heard that are spotless are Randy's. Most other stuff makes me feel better about my own stuff. Hetfield's tracks are pretty damned good too...

Currently I'm working on a Metallica cover and I hate listening to just the guitar track. Maybe it's just me being overly critical on my own work, but I can't stand the single track. In the mix it sounds like it should.


----------



## CaptainZero

Dogs of Doom said:


> If this works for you, you might just add a few bucks for lighting. The more room light, the better the image quality will be. Learning light, is like learning mic's. You deal w/ angles, reflection, etc. When you have more than enough light, turn down the light in the camera. Make sure the light is adjustable in the camera...



You can get great video even from your phone, but you need really good lighting. A picture from a phone can pass for a high end dslr IF you are outside and in great light. As soon as it gets questionable, a crappy camera will take a crappy picture, or video. 

By the way, have you ever seen the old clapper thing they use to start a scene in a movie? They do that so they can easily line up the audio and video in post.


----------



## scat7s

Australian said:


> What do you guys average in latency?
> With my other older interface- Motu ultralite 3 firewire I get 6 ms latency.
> With my new Apollo Quad thunderbolt I'll get sub 2ms. Thats going to be a noticeable difference.



currently probably about 200 to 500ms hahahahahahahaha...no kidding. 

im using this old sonorus studi/o card from the 90's. Im still using the adats for a/d converters. but the nice part is I have up to 16 simultaneous inputs (not that I will likely ever need that many, but its nice to have at least 8 to record live drums if I wanted to)

but I don't care about latency. I don't have to hear it while monitoring live takes, and reaper accounts for the latency and corrects itself on playback pretty accurately.


----------



## Australian

scat7s said:


> currently probably about 200 to 500ms hahahahahahahaha...no kidding.
> 
> im using this old sonorus studi/o card from the 90's. Im still using the adats for a/d converters. but the nice part is I have up to 16 simultaneous inputs (not that I will likely ever need that many, but its nice to have at least 8 to record live drums if I wanted to)
> 
> but I don't care about latency. I don't have to hear it while monitoring live takes, and reaper accounts for the latency and corrects itself on playback pretty accurately.




I've heard some of your recordings and they're tight, so its how you know your equipment thats important I guess.


----------



## Australian

blues_n_cues said:


> around 5ms but it really depends on sample rate,buffer settings,RAM,& CPU usage which depends on # of plug-ins,virtual instruments,etc.etc..
> 
> [/url]



Actually I just checked and had my Daw left on on a high buffer size to play a song with a lot of tracks, testing it the other day. So Probably actually hover around 4 or 5 ms generally with my normal buffer size(192 samples).

At 5ms what buffer size do you have it on?


I just found out that my Motu Audio Interface will work with my new Computer with a firewire to thunderbolt converter cable. DUH! I didn't predict that fortune! At least I'll get some recording in until friday until I pick up and sort out my new AI.


----------



## scat7s

Australian said:


> I've heard some of your recordings and they're tight, so its how you know your equipment thats important I guess.



most everything you've heard has been recorded direct to adat tapes...so pretty much roll thru it with the occasional punch in here and there and mix in real time....wait till you hear my new productions now that I can cheat with a computer 

im working on a remix of the forum song thing from last year...it sounds freaking good. particularly compared to the original mess....its gonna be badass aus.


----------



## Australian

scat7s said:


> most everything you've heard has been recorded direct to adat tapes...so pretty much roll thru it with the occasional punch in here and there and mix in real time....wait till you hear my new productions now that I can cheat with a computer
> 
> im working on a remix of the forum song thing from last year...it sounds freaking good. particularly compared to the original mess....its gonna be badass aus.




Cool. When will it be finished?


----------



## scat7s

dunno. maybe a week or two? im picking away at it in between other things.


----------



## Australian

I just got back from the Mac shop. And $950 bucks later I've got the final pieces to this new Workstation. :

-another 16 GB of RAM (total is now 24 GB)
-some firewire/thunderbolt adaptors in case I want to use firewire.
-A 3TB Thunderbolt 2 Drive.


----------



## SmokeyDopey

If youre not recording directly to tape, passing a stereo mix through some tape can give it a nice... character. Very cool way to "glue" everything together.


----------



## Australian

SmokeyDopey said:


> If youre not recording directly to tape, passing a stereo mix through some tape can give it a nice... character. Very cool way to "glue" everything together.




Very true sir Smokey. I wish I could find one of those Phillips Digital Tape recorders, and try them. They didn't last long because MiniDisk took over. I used to sort of like how MiniDisk gave some compression to a song. I still have a couple of MiniDisk recorders collecting dust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Compact_Cassette

But ADAT would be better so...


----------



## minerman

I've got a question for you guys that use an e-kit for recording....How well do the hi-hats do on the different articulations triggering a vsti (EZ Drummer for example)...Do the lower-end/cheaper kits trigger/work pretty decent on the hi-hat articulations???

I'm thinking pretty hard about buying an e-kit to record my midi drums, & ditch the long, tedious process of programming 'em...I know I'll have to go in & fix a lot of things (as I'm no drummer...sure, I can play drums, but not really _well_...), but I should be able to get a basic beat to a song down a lot faster & easier than trying to get the software/loops to "fit"....

For example, say EZ Drummer's hi-hats have 5-6 articulations, does the e-kit's hi-hat do a pretty realistic job triggering the different articulations???? I'm sure the higher-end/more expensive e-kits do, but remember, I'm really not a drummer, & don't wanna spend a fortune on an e-kit....



Any help here Marshall heads????


----------



## blues_n_cues

Australian said:


> Actually I just checked and had my Daw left on on a high buffer size to play a song with a lot of tracks, testing it the other day. So Probably actually hover around 4 or 5 ms generally with my normal buffer size(192 samples).
> 
> At 5ms what buffer size do you have it on?
> 48,000/256
> 
> I just found out that my Motu Audio Interface will work with my new Computer with a firewire to thunderbolt converter cable. DUH! I didn't predict that fortune! At least I'll get some recording in until friday until I pick up and sort out my new AI.



the sample rate affects latency more than the buffer size.
be wary though- most standard vst plug-in won't work above 48,000kHz.
also,the default standard CD mixdown rate is 44,100/16. you can up that to match your recording settings but it makes the file size larger & once again,most vst's won't come out with it set above 48,000kHz.


----------



## blues_n_cues

minerman said:


> I've got a question for you guys that use an e-kit for recording....How well do the hi-hats do on the different articulations triggering a vsti (EZ Drummer for example)...Do the lower-end/cheaper kits trigger/work pretty decent on the hi-hat articulations???
> 
> I'm thinking pretty hard about buying an e-kit to record my midi drums, & ditch the long, tedious process of programming 'em...I know I'll have to go in & fix a lot of things (as I'm no drummer...sure, I can play drums, but not really _well_...), but I should be able to get a basic beat to a song down a lot faster & easier than trying to get the software/loops to "fit"....
> 
> For example, say EZ Drummer's hi-hats have 5-6 articulations, does the e-kit's hi-hat do a pretty realistic job triggering the different articulations???? I'm sure the higher-end/more expensive e-kits do, but remember, I'm really not a drummer, & don't wanna spend a fortune on an e-kit....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any help here Marshall heads????



my kit is an old Yamaha DT-Express w/ a pad instead of the rubber hi-hat looking one which does pretty good but the spring on the pedal itself is old or just needs a heavier one for me(still researching that mod).

if you can play @ all it's better than programming for hours. you can always go into MIDI editor & fix things here & there. I can't do triplet rolls very good so I do them on my midi keyboard controller and add them in in the editor.

this is my kit-
I added an extra pad to it for ride cymbal or extra floor tom depending on how I have the mapping set up.
my plan now is to add on 3-4 more pieces + bass drum & extra "brain" for a monster e-kit.





edit- 
you can also use real cymbals & hi-hat (I would suggest a "tight" polar pattern unidirectional mic for the hi-hat and point it away from the kit).you just need to do some editing between cymbal hits if there's a lot of bleed or you can use the from-the-front overhead mic technique.

my kit w/ the real cymbals & 'hats-


----------



## ricksteruk

minerman said:


> I've got a question for you guys that use an e-kit for recording....How well do the hi-hats do on the different articulations triggering a vsti (EZ Drummer for example)...Do the lower-end/cheaper kits trigger/work pretty decent on the hi-hat articulations???
> 
> I'm thinking pretty hard about buying an e-kit to record my midi drums, & ditch the long, tedious process of programming 'em...I know I'll have to go in & fix a lot of things (as I'm no drummer...sure, I can play drums, but not really _well_...), but I should be able to get a basic beat to a song down a lot faster & easier than trying to get the software/loops to "fit"....
> 
> For example, say EZ Drummer's hi-hats have 5-6 articulations, does the e-kit's hi-hat do a pretty realistic job triggering the different articulations???? I'm sure the higher-end/more expensive e-kits do, but remember, I'm really not a drummer, & don't wanna spend a fortune on an e-kit....
> 
> 
> 
> Any help here Marshall heads????



We've got a Roland e kit at home and I've found it a struggle to get it to marry up with MIDI drums - yes it is especially the hi hats.. the open sound and the closing with the pedal... A year or two ago it seemed to work well with Garageband on my mac, but since they've updated Garageband a few times since then it doesn't work as well.

I need to put some time in to find a solution that works too.

Not sure if all e-kits work in exactly the same way either, so that's worth looking into!!


----------



## blues_n_cues

SmokeyDopey said:


> If youre not recording directly to tape, passing a stereo mix through some tape can give it a nice... character. Very cool way to "glue" everything together.



there is also this,depending on what you are going for-
How to Use a "Bit-crusher" Plug-in to Add Warmth

this tape vst is a freebie but requires authorization so...-
CDSoundMaster Releases R2R-FREE - A Free Analog Tape Emulation Plugin - Bedroom Producers Blog


----------



## ricksteruk

Australian said:


> I just found out that my Motu Audio Interface will work with my new Computer with a firewire to thunderbolt converter cable. DUH! I didn't predict that fortune! At least I'll get some recording in until friday until I pick up and sort out my new AI.



I've been using MOTU since the first 2408 came out around 1998 - when I was able to record 24 tracks of audio into my G3 tower mac.. nice!

MOTU are very good at supporting their hardware. VERY GOOD!

I could plug the original 2408 rack box from '98 into one of MOTU's more recent PCI mac cards and it will still work.

Anyhows, hope your happy with your audio interface choice - just thought I'd put in a good word for MOTU. On the other hand, we had to get rid of a Presonus Firestudio interface at work less than a year after we bought it because it wasn't supported by the company to work with the new Mac OS. I replaced it with a MOTU which is still working perfectly.


----------



## blues_n_cues

ricksteruk said:


> We've got a Roland e kit at home and I've found it a struggle to get it to marry up with MIDI drums - yes it is especially the hi hats.. the open sound and the closing with the pedal... A year or two ago it seemed to work well with Garageband on my mac, but since they've updated Garageband a few times since then it doesn't work as well.
> 
> I need to put some time in to find a solution that works too.
> 
> Not sure if all e-kits work in exactly the same way either, so that's worth looking into!!



I've read good & bad about the "cheaper" Roland kits (sub $1000 kits)
and a drummer friend actually prefers my kit to his Alesis DM10.

personally,I'm thinking about going back to a regular hi-hat just for the feel of it & using an audio to midi converter to be able to edit the HH track.


----------



## Australian

blues_n_cues said:


> the sample rate affects latency more than the buffer size.
> be wary though- most standard vst plug-in won't work above 48,000kHz.
> also,the default standard CD mixdown rate is 44,100/16. you can up that to match your recording settings but it makes the file size larger & once again,most vst's won't come out with it set above 48,000kHz.




I have put together the components to this studio DAW so that CPU or latency problems will be non existent. So the Computer CPU will be used for Virtual Instruments and some plugins, but the majority of the effects plugins will be from the Apollo.

-*The Lacie drive* is going to zip along. It's also upgradable to an SSD drive.
read and write speeds of 221.3MB/s and 221.1MB/s respectively. With the upgrade PCIe SSD performance will be around 870.0MB/s read and 458MB/s write.

-T*he Apollo Quad* running with thunderbolt connection is going to have very low latency.

-even increasing the *RAM to 24gb* has made actions on computer flow like butter.


----------



## Australian

ricksteruk said:


> I've been using MOTU since the first 2408 came out around 1998 - when I was able to record 24 tracks of audio into my G3 tower mac.. nice!
> 
> MOTU are very good at supporting their hardware. VERY GOOD!
> 
> I could plug the original 2408 rack box from '98 into one of MOTU's more recent PCI mac cards and it will still work.
> 
> Anyhows, hope your happy with your audio interface choice - just thought I'd put in a good word for MOTU. On the other hand, we had to get rid of a Presonus Firestudio interface at work less than a year after we bought it because it wasn't supported by the company to work with the new Mac OS. I replaced it with a MOTU which is still working perfectly.



Thats good to know. I can't complain at all with the experience Ive had with Motu.
Well the Audio Interface that I had before the Motu wasn't good at keeping up with macs updates, so I assumed that Motu would be the same. But Motu got back to me in two days and said that the latest drivers would work with the latest ,Mac OS. And they sure do. No problems with midi either.
But because I impatient and not getting an answer within a day, assuming they wouldn't even get back to me, I went out and bought another audio interface, which was on the cards anyway.

After a few weeks of hefty product research I narrowed it down to three Audio interfaces within the price range that I was prepared to pay:
-UA Apollo Quad thunderbolt
-Apogee Ensemble
-Motu 828x

It was finally between the Apogee and the Apollo but the Apollo has more of what I will use.


----------



## blues_n_cues

Australian said:


> After a few weeks of hefty product research I narrowed it down to three Audio interfaces within the price range that I was prepared to pay:
> -UA Apollo Quad thunderbolt
> -Apogee Ensemble
> -Motu 828x
> 
> It was finally between the Apogee and the Apollo but the Apollo has more of what I will use.



for those that may not know, Apollo is made by Universal Audio,makers of the famed 6176,LA-610,Solo 610,, & 710 mic Pre's.


----------



## scat7s

a freind of mine has had a couple of e kits over the yrs. we recorded a handful of tracks with it a few yrs ago. and yeah the thing you seem to notice most is the hihat as sounding unnatural/odd sometimes, but overall the results were better than (I) expected. but he is a pretty seasoned drummer as well.


----------



## Coronado

I may not be answering this question correctly, so please forgive me if I'm way off. I know that in EZ Drummer 2, they have updated the tool with the ability to add and modify any drum piece or playing note you want, and quite simply without having to go into the track iteself and mess with it. For example, you can click on the high hat and it gives you a drop down list - form there you can modify the sound, change the type of kit, increase sound, add notes, etc... I've dragged in some other tracks from another midi and I was able to completely change the tempo and change to odd timing (signature?).


----------



## blues_n_cues

scat7s said:


> a freind of mine has had a couple of e kits over the yrs. we recorded a handful of tracks with it a few yrs ago. and yeah the thing you seem to notice most is the hihat as sounding unnatural/odd sometimes, but overall the results were better than (I) expected. but he is a pretty seasoned drummer as well.



well I'm no drummer @ all but there's the 2 in my sig then there's this one which I was trying to be Ian Pace.
[SC]https://soundcloud.com/rlc-ltd/bass-song-idea-v2-wav[/SC]


----------



## SmokeyDopey

Australian said:


> Very true sir Smokey. I wish I could find one of those Phillips Digital Tape recorders, and try them. They didn't last long because MiniDisk took over. I used to sort of like how MiniDisk gave some compression to a song. I still have a couple of MiniDisk recorders collecting dust.
> 
> Digital Compact Cassette - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> But ADAT would be better so...



Ive been playing with a TASCAM 34 (4 track, quarter inch tape machine). It had a few issues but recorded at least to 2 tracks, the other 2 werent working. Its back from the tech, so I gotta see how its sounding now  
He took care of the back panel which was a little loose, took care of some of the electronics, blown capacitor on one of the tracks and re aligned it.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Australian said:


> Very true sir Smokey. I wish I could find one of those Phillips Digital Tape recorders, and try them. They didn't last long because MiniDisk took over. I used to sort of like how MiniDisk gave some compression to a song. I still have a couple of MiniDisk recorders collecting dust.
> 
> Digital Compact Cassette - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> But ADAT would be better so...


You're missing the point Sir Aussie...

The point is to pass it through an analogue stage to warm it up. DAT, nor the Digi-Cassette, etc., would do that.

I'm not sure that running it through tape, just for tape's sake will be an auto improvement, but if you use it in mastering to saturate the tape &/or have some tube pre-amps built-in, there's some mojo to be had. You still will adhere to the tape width, speed, etc., thing to add certain depth, warmth, etc., & to keep the quality in check.

The mini-disc added a compression by the limits of the medium. It was a lossy format (like mp3) & chose to compress data & sound by reducing the dynamic levels & crush certain frequencies. It's funny, when you talk to people who can't hear the difference between mp3 & wav, nor see any advantage to anything higher than 44.1/16. When you constantly work in higher freq/sample, the lower resolution sounds bad. 

I find that when I upload to soundcloud, that they must use their own compression system, because the sound when I play audio back sounds nothing like what I upload. 

Ideally, would to have a nice wide tape @ a fast speed & push the tape to saturation point (being careful not to push it too far), where you can actually keep a frequency/depth above 44.1/16, then you could get some high quality effects. I guess if you want to use diminished quality for effect, you could run everything through an AM radio broadcast, or such. There's a lot of ways to do that digitally though.

I've always wondered why the "wv" format never caught on...


----------



## SmokeyDopey

Yeah, I don't think it's really an improvement. It depends on what you're working with. If one were recording an orchestra, I don't think one would usualy pass it though tape. On the contrary... One would try to keep it as clean as possible. Tape can add color, 'roundness', some frequencies can be filtered out too... So it isn't realy making it ''better''. But if color/compression is desired, it can work great. Also most of the classic albums we all heard have been recorded on tape, and one can get the impression that it doesnt sound legit or like a 'real album' if there wasn't tape involved.

Of course this can be a huge debate... I think it's just come down to personal taste.


----------



## scat7s

Ive been wondering for a while now why my recordings sound so different when they are played back on my computer, thru my hi fi, compared to a master mix, dumped into my handheld recorder as a wav file. (44.1k @ 24 bit usually, although im going to start using the 48k sample rate from now on), played back thru the same hifi. 

same bit and freq resolution, yet, it clearly sounds different. and not in a good way. I mean...its ok, but def different. things that you don't expect suddenly stick out, things that were very present in the mix are suddenly buried etc...its weird and frustrating. and it only gets worse from there when you start uploading to other things like sc or the like.

I guess I should quit using the handheld as a transfer medium? see if that helps...


----------



## SmokeyDopey

Well, I would assume the playback on the handheld recorder is inferior to the one on your computer? I dont know what makes it worse, but I too have had a similar experience.

I had an mp3 player that played wavs. I would use it as monitoring to record a guitar part, then dum the track to the project. 
I would align it in the beggining of the song, but towards the end of the song the recorded guitar was slightly delayed. It drove me crazy until I realized the damn mp3 was playing back slightly slower.


----------



## Australian

scat7s said:


> Ive been wondering for a while now why my recordings sound so different when they are played back on my computer, thru my hi fi, compared to a master mix, dumped into my handheld recorder as a wav file. (44.1k @ 24 bit usually, although im going to start using the 48k sample rate from now on), played back thru the same hifi.
> 
> same bit and freq resolution, yet, it clearly sounds different. and not in a good way. I mean...its ok, but def different. things that you don't expect suddenly stick out, things that were very present in the mix are suddenly buried etc...its weird and frustrating. and it only gets worse from there when you start uploading to other things like sc or the like.
> 
> I guess I should quit using the handheld as a transfer medium? see if that helps...




Converters, etc.


----------



## Australian

Well guys I'm going to pick up my Apollo Quad and the Cubase Pro 8 upgrade. Got the call its arrived! 

Might even snap me a Logic Pro X upgrade too. I like the new user interface, and it would be nice to eventually have complete Mac integration between Imovie, Garage Band, Logic etc. but Cubase has been my baby for a long time and I know it so well.


----------



## Australian

Dogs of Doom said:


> You're missing the point Sir Aussie...
> 
> The point is to pass it through an analogue stage to warm it up. DAT, nor the Digi-Cassette, etc., would do that.
> 
> .




True. I was stuck in a 90's moment when I wrote that late at night. These holidays you know.


----------



## Australian

SmokeyDopey said:


> Ive been playing with a TASCAM 34 (4 track, quarter inch tape machine). It had a few issues but recorded at least to 2 tracks, the other 2 werent working. Its back from the tech, so I gotta see how its sounding now
> He took care of the back panel which was a little loose, took care of some of the electronics, blown capacitor on one of the tracks and re aligned it.



You can make excellent recordings with those.
The last recording that I did on a Tascam reel to reel 8trk was a three songs with a friend I was doing writing with at the time . He was great in the studio. He had a big disk and was bouncing and punching in like a wizard and the result was really good. I will have to upload it so you can hear it. But unfortunately I can only upload the MiniDisk recording. I dont have a DAT player to upload the DAT Master.


----------



## Australian

Its all set up and working seamlessly. Did some recording and composing today. I've got a few years worth of albums of songs I need to record ASAP!


----------



## Nudge68

I picked up a Rode NT1 mic from Thomann while I was back in London over Christmas/NY. Looking forward to see how that goes.

Next on my list is the Cubase Pro 8. I've been on LE5 forever and before that the second version of Cubase as well as Ableton Live 7. I'm used to Cubase, so I'll stick with that.

I brought back my daughter's dead MacBook Pro (barely 6 months old ) and may turn that into a dedicated DAW whenever I get around to getting it fixed. The only problem is that all my software is Windows based and currently resides on a Sony Vaio. Or I purge the Sony and use that as a dedicated DAW


----------



## 12barjunkie

I'm sure a lot of you guys already know about KVR Audio, but for those of you that don't, it's an awesome site for software plugins and effects. I've used the search function to find almost all of the free VST effects I use 

KVR: Audio Plug-ins, Hosts, Applications, Mobile Apps, Soundware and Hardware Search


----------



## 12barjunkie

Here's another link for some more free VST effects. The Variety of Sound and the Modern plugs are AWESOME

Over 90 Free VST Effects Plugins - Tuts+ Music & Audio Article


----------



## Australian

Nudge68 said:


> I picked up a Rode NT1 mic from Thomann while I was back in London over Christmas/NY. Looking forward to see how that goes.
> 
> Next on my list is the Cubase Pro 8. I've been on LE5 forever and before that the second version of Cubase as well as Ableton Live 7. I'm used to Cubase, so I'll stick with that.
> 
> I brought back my daughter's dead MacBook Pro (barely 6 months old ) and may turn that into a dedicated DAW whenever I get around to getting it fixed. The only problem is that all my software is Windows based and currently resides on a Sony Vaio. Or I purge the Sony and use that as a dedicated DAW




The Mac should run a lot of the PC software if you have a late enough OS.

How about Cubase, still using ELicenser and a dongle. Thats a pita.


----------



## Nudge68

You _still _ need a dongle?


----------



## blues_n_cues

Nudge68 said:


> I picked up a Rode NT1 mic from Thomann while I was back in London over Christmas/NY. Looking forward to see how that goes.
> 
> Next on my list is the Cubase Pro 8. I've been on LE5 forever and before that the second version of Cubase as well as Ableton Live 7. I'm used to Cubase, so I'll stick with that.
> 
> I brought back my daughter's dead MacBook Pro (barely 6 months old ) and may turn that into a dedicated DAW whenever I get around to getting it fixed. The only problem is that all my software is Windows based and currently resides on a Sony Vaio. Or I purge the Sony and use that as a dedicated DAW



I'd say Windows based dedicated DAW 'puter but that's just me. it's easier to find a lot of things for Windows.

a Rode NT-1 is on my list too. I almost picked up a pair the other day for cheap but was too slow.


----------



## blues_n_cues

a good read or refresher by John Scrip of Massive Mastering-
Proper Audio Recording Levels | The Rants and Ravings of an Audio Mastering Engineer


----------



## poeman33

blues_n_cues said:


> a good read or refresher by John Scrip of Massive Mastering-
> Proper Audio Recording Levels | The Rants and Ravings of an Audio Mastering Engineer


Thanks for posting that link. I've got to try that this weekend. I would have never thought about going THAT low when recording, but his article makes sense.


----------



## JimiRules

poeman33 said:


> Thanks for posting that link. I've got to try that this weekend. I would have never thought about going THAT low when recording, but his article makes sense.



Me neither. I think I was told to record around -6. I'm definitely going to try what was said in that article.


----------



## blues_n_cues

JimiRules said:


> Me neither. I think I was told to record around -6. I'm definitely going to try what was said in that article.



well,I think a lot of it is your gain staging too. if you have a stand-alone preamp or compressor in the chain before the DAW of course you want to be that low but if you are using vst compressor,eq,channel strip,etc.etc. then go a bit higher.

normally I do everything around -6 with the Master track around -3. the way I have my mastering tools set up & it's just as loud or louder than commercial releases w/out being nowhere near as compressed. 
*BUT*... if I were to send it out for mastering I just drop out the Master Track FX chain & drop the track's level down to -6 or even -8 & we're good on final headroom.


----------



## JimiRules

blues_n_cues said:


> well,I think a lot of it is you gain staging too. if you have a stand-alone preamp or compressor in the chain before the DAW of course you want to be that low but if you are using vst compressor,eq,channel strip,etc.etc. then go a bit higher.
> 
> normally I do everything around -6 with the Master track around -3 the way I have my mastering tools set up & it's just as loud or louder than commercial releases w/out being nowhere near as compressed.
> *BUT*... if I were to send it out for mastering I just drop out the Master Track FX chain & drop the track's level down to -6 or even -8 & we're good on final headroom.



The last CD I did with my band I recorded everything around the -6, sometimes a tad lower depending on the instrument, mostly the drums. Then when I did the mix I raised it to 0, and it was still a tad under most commercial releases. The default setting on the limiter I was using was +2, so I may end up raising it to that and see how it turns out.

I was pretty happy with how pretty much everything turned out with that CD other than the bass. I think I mentioned it in this thread, but while I was mixing the bass was pretty prominent in the mix in the monitors I was using, but when it was all finished and I listened to the songs on other things, (PC, Car stereo, home stereo) the bass was barely audible. It was pretty frustrating.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

you should use the Maxxbass plug-in...

[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjwrdlamw-U[/ame]


----------



## blues_n_cues

JimiRules said:


> The last CD I did with my band I recorded everything around the -6, sometimes a tad lower depending on the instrument, mostly the drums. Then when I did the mix I raised it to 0, and it was still a tad under most commercial releases. The default setting on the limiter I was using was +2, so I may end up raising it to that and see how it turns out.
> 
> I was pretty happy with how pretty much everything turned out with that CD other than the bass. I think I mentioned it in this thread, but while I was mixing the bass was pretty prominent in the mix in the monitors I was using, but when it was all finished and I listened to the songs on other things, (PC, Car stereo, home stereo) the bass was barely audible. It was pretty frustrating.



lemme guess,5" or 6" monitors...
or it could just be the room & the way it was set up-or not set up for mixing.


----------



## JimiRules

blues_n_cues said:


> lemme guess,5" or 6" monitors...
> or it could just be the room & the way it was set up-or not set up for mixing.



Actually we had our recorder hooked up through our mixer that we use to play shows and that went into a couple of Peavey columns that we use in our PA. After recording I set up all the levels to where everything sounded the best. Then I finalized the recording and transferred it to Mixcraft on my PC and used the limiter included on that program to raise the volume on the recording.


----------



## Biddlin

JimiRules said:


> The last CD I did with my band I recorded everything around the -6, sometimes a tad lower depending on the instrument, mostly the drums. Then when I did the mix I raised it to 0, and it was still a tad under most commercial releases. The default setting on the limiter I was using was +2, so I may end up raising it to that and see how it turns out.
> 
> I was pretty happy with how pretty much everything turned out with that CD other than the bass. I think I mentioned it in this thread, but while I was mixing the bass was pretty prominent in the mix in the monitors I was using, but when it was all finished and I listened to the songs on other things, (PC, Car stereo, home stereo) the bass was barely audible. It was pretty frustrating.





blues_n_cues said:


> lemme guess,5" or 6" monitors...
> or it could just be the room & the way it was set up-or not set up for mixing.


 Recently had the headphones I've mixed with for almost 30 years go walk about. Using my new ones, semi-closed, I mix the bass too far down in the mix on just about everything. But I, too record at very low levels, to keep it super clean. (so I can dirty it up in the kitchen, later.
;>)/


----------



## JimiRules

Biddlin said:


> Recently had the headphones I've mixed with for almost 30 years go walk about. Using my new ones, semi-closed, I mix the bass too far down in the mix on just about everything. But I, too record at very low levels, to keep it super clean. (so I can dirty it up in the kitchen, later.
> ;>)/




Do you recommend using headphones over listening over regular speakers? That project was the first recording project I've ever done where I did all the recording and mixing myself. I learned a lot doing it, but the mixing process still gives me problems. We are currently getting ready to start recording again in a month or so, so I get to dive back into it.


----------



## blues_n_cues

ah,
Jimi Rules- yeah that was bound to come out totally different.lol

Biddlin-
yeah,new phones or monitors take some getting used to.

I've done so many projects over the last couple of years w/ pretty much the same gear & methods I *know* what the semi-open phones are going to "say" but later w/ my 8" monitors in this room are going to be something different so I rely on visuals @ the board and sometimes a spectrum analyzer & it usually comes out pretty accurate in the vehicle/elsewhere final listen.


----------



## blues_n_cues

JimiRules said:


> Do you recommend using headphones over listening over regular speakers? That project was the first recording project I've ever done where I did all the recording and mixing myself. I learned a lot doing it, but the mixing process still gives me problems. We are currently getting ready to start recording again in a month or so, so I get to dive back into it.



you really need both,plus a decent set of home stereo speakers for reference but the main thing, like anything else,is just time doing it.


----------



## Biddlin

JimiRules said:


> Do you recommend using headphones over listening over regular speakers? That project was the first recording project I've ever done where I did all the recording and mixing myself. I learned a lot doing it, but the mixing process still gives me problems. We are currently getting ready to start recording again in a month or so, so I get to dive back into it.





blues_n_cues said:


> you really need both,plus a decent set of home stereo speakers for reference but the main thing, like anything else,is just time doing it.


Yeah, both. I have a set of tuned Wharfedales from the 60s in my living room, that are the final word. ( I also have a good pair of ESS AMT-1's in my "studio" that I picked up when I worked for them. )
Should I also mention that I have a Roberts reel to reel and Pioneer mixer, in the corner that is a hell of a lot more forgiving than all this digital stuff, oh well.
;>)/


----------



## JimiRules

blues_n_cues said:


> ah,
> Jimi Rules- yeah that was bound to come out totally different.lol
> 
> Biddlin-
> yeah,new phones or monitors take some getting used to.
> 
> I've done so many projects over the last couple of years w/ pretty much the same gear & methods I *know* what the semi-open phones are going to "say" but later w/ my 8" monitors in this room are going to be something different so I rely on visuals @ the board and sometimes a spectrum analyzer & it usually comes out pretty accurate in the vehicle/elsewhere final listen.



Lol, I didn't expect them to sound the same. When I had it going through the PA equipment the bass was pumping. I understood that when the same song was going to be played on a lower power speaker it wasn't going to have the same bottom end, I just didn't expect the bass to disappear.


----------



## JimiRules

blues_n_cues said:


> you really need both,plus a decent set of home stereo speakers for reference but the main thing, like anything else,is just time doing it.



Yeah, I learned that with the last CD. I tried to mix it by myself in a week's time. This time I told the rest of the band that there was going to be no deadline and this time the whole band was going to be involved in the process and we weren't going to be finished until everyone signs off on it.


----------



## Coronado

blues_n_cues said:


> you really need both,plus a decent set of home stereo speakers for reference but the main thing, like anything else,is just time doing it.


 
Totally agree with Blues - I'm always amazed how what you pick up with each. For me, headphones are great for really diving into the mix and hearing every note. Also great for hearing all of those little mistakes I make, but hey, those mistakes make it better 

Then I'll play it throught the monitors to get the overall feel. It helps me to see whats a bit flat, where I need to add/move/remove, etc... Still have yet to download it, but getting there.

I have had SUCH a block lately. I need a new strategy. Think I need to just step away for a bit and stop forcing it.


----------



## Coronado

Hey Blues, I saw in another post that you use a Zoom G1. I saw a couple videos where a Zoom Q3 was used. I've been pretty impressed with the quality of these videos where the zoom was used. Are you a big fan of the zoom recording tools? They seem like they would be really helpful for recording when you dont want to set up all the gear, run it through the mic, process it through the DAW, then blend with the video, etc... Do you use your G1 for videos as well?

Thanks brother!


----------



## blues_n_cues

Coronado said:


> Hey Blues, I saw in another post that you use a Zoom G1. I saw a couple videos where a Zoom Q3 was used. I've been pretty impressed with the quality of these videos where the zoom was used. Are you a big fan of the zoom recording tools? They seem like they would be really helpful for recording when you dont want to set up all the gear, run it through the mic, process it through the DAW, then blend with the video, etc... Do you use your G1 for videos as well?
> 
> Thanks brother!



no, the Zoom G1 is just a multi fx pedal but I do use it for a couple of clean acoustic & 12 string things,harmonies just for effect (which I usually do harms the old fashioned way),one mid gain Marshall tone just for color,& mostly a bass rig when I want to save on CPU by not using plug-ins. live,it's just my tuner.


----------



## blues_n_cues

JimiRules said:


> Yeah, I learned that with the last CD. I tried to mix it by myself in a week's time. This time I told the rest of the band that there was going to be no deadline and this time the whole band was going to be involved in the process and we weren't going to be finished until everyone signs off on it.



what I meant by time doing it was doing multiple projects over time w/ the same gear/DAW/etc. just like playing guitar,noone is going to get good just by sitting down w/ it for a week every few months. you need to spend @ least an hour a day for a while & try different things,experiment,read,watch how-to vids,& burn a lot of CDs.lol


----------



## scat7s

blues_n_cues said:


> what I meant by time doing it was doing multiple projects over time w/ the same gear/DAW/etc. just like playing guitar,noone is going to get good just by sitting down w/ it for a week every few months. you need to spend @ least an hour a day for a while & try different things,experiment,read,watch how-to vids,& burn a lot of CDs.lol


 
yep. its a lot like work. lol....and the more i know, the more I realize i don't know shit.... the whole thing can be quite daunting...but, you press on I guess.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Once upon a time, we used to record in our practice space & used the mains to mix. Terrible reference. One thing that helps is to play something else on CD (or wav) of a commercial album & a/b it w/ your mix for reference.

Try & balance out your spectrum w/ theirs. Then put a mix down & go listen somewhere else where you have a more trusty reference.

That MaxxBass plug-in is really good though. It adds harmonics that fool your ear into thinking that bass is there, that usn't. It makes it so that when you listen on small speakers, you can have the same bass effect as on a larger system. There is a little learning curve to it though, so you'll want to practice on a few things 1st...

http://www.waves.com/plugins/maxxbass


----------



## JimiRules

Dogs of Doom said:


> Once upon a time, we used to record in our practice space & used the mains to mix. Terrible reference. One thing that helps is to play something else on CD (or wav) of a commercial album & a/b it w/ your mix for reference.
> 
> Try & balance out your spectrum w/ theirs. Then put a mix down & go listen somewhere else where you have a more trusty reference.
> 
> That MaxxBass plug-in is really good though. It adds harmonics that fool your ear into thinking that bass is there, that usn't. It makes it so that when you listen on small speakers, you can have the same bass effect as on a larger system. There is a little learning curve to it though, so you'll want to practice on a few things 1st...
> 
> MaxxBass - Bass Enhancer Plugin | Waves



Thanks for the tips!


----------



## blues_n_cues

sometimes sitting bass tracks isn't the easiest thing anyway,it all depends on-
your personal system
the room
number of rythm guitar tracks
bass drum tone & frequency
bass amp tone
keys,synths,strings tracks if any
genre

1) sometimes a cleaner bass tone or even a 2nd track with a cleaner bass tone will help it *pop* through the mix w/ multiple guitars. (think Iron Maiden)

2) if the bass is thin add a 2nd track w/ slight fuzz/distortion on it to fill it out.

3) you can always lay a strings or synth "bed" under the bass. maybe just one root note sustaining throughout any weak parts to fill out the frequency spectrum but not necessarily loud enough to be discernible. 

a few different ways to do technique #2
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2RnIRgt73g[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDbDeTNHQiQ[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00VJkQuDsg8[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTEDTh5IevM[/ame]


----------



## johnfv

blues_n_cues said:


> ...add a 2nd track w/ slight fuzz/distortion on it to fill it out...


Dude, you're giving away all the secrets 

I've been running this way going back to the old analog days when it was significantly more difficult to configure. The other thing I like to do is put a high pass filter on the gritty track so the low end does not conflict in any way with the clean low end. Another easy way to accomplish this sort of combination is run a DI plus (somewhat overdriven) tube amp. The high pass filter helps minimize any phase issues but you can also align the tracks with some slight delay on the DI. A good friend is running his live rig in a similar way: TC RH450 for big fat clean tone into an 1x18 and a JTM 45 clone for crunch into a 1x15. Sounds huge...


----------



## blues_n_cues

johnfv said:


> Dude, you're giving away all the secrets
> ...



don't worry, I didn't mention the dual Para EQ w/ separate compressions & chorus tricks.


----------



## minerman

Just bought my first e-kit, Yamaha DTX400....should be here about Tuesday...pretty excited to be honest, but I know I've got a long way to go learning to play drums...But, I'm pretty confident I can pull it off, & it should be waaay faster getting a basic song down compared to programming 'em like I've been doing for years...I'll post some pics when they arrive & I get them set up...

Should be staying at the new pad by the end of the weekend too, I'll post some pics of my little recording setup when I get it all lined out...


----------



## Australian

minerman said:


> Just bought my first e-kit, Yamaha DTX400....should be here about Tuesday...pretty excited to be honest, but I know I've got a long way to go learning to play drums...But, I'm pretty confident I can pull it off, & it should be waaay faster getting a basic song down compared to programming 'em like I've been doing for years...I'll post some pics when they arrive & I get them set up...
> 
> Should be staying at the new pad by the end of the weekend too, I'll post some pics of my little recording setup when I get it all lined out...




They're fun. Ive got a Roland TD3 and midi it through my DAW to use the VirtInst sampled drums. 
My friend who is a pro drummer played these at a small gig we did a few years ago and he made them sound really good. So the potential is there with these kits, even with the onboard kits they have.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

I know in Cubase, it you lay down a drum track & your timing is off, you can quantize the tracks, so that all the beats line up...

I'm pretty sure you can w/ Pro Tools & other DAW's as well...


----------



## minerman

Australian said:


> They're fun. Ive got a Roland TD3 and midi it through my DAW to use the VirtInst sampled drums.
> My friend who is a pro drummer played these at a small gig we did a few years ago and he made them sound really good. So the potential is there with these kits, even with the onboard kits they have.



Thanks man, I've been doing the midi programming thing for years now, & while I get decent results, it takes forever & a day...I use Jamstix 3 too, which helps a lot, but the program is really deep/complicated, & it'd just be a lot faster & easier for me to play the parts instead of trying to get the software to do what I want it to....

I'm not knocking the on-board/built-in sounds until I try 'em, but I will most likely be triggering Superior Drummer or another drum vsti in my daw....

Thanks again!!!


----------



## blues_n_cues

minerman said:


> Thanks man, I've been doing the midi programming thing for years now, & while I get decent results, it takes forever & a day...I use Jamstix 3 too, which helps a lot, but the program is really deep/complicated, & it'd just be a lot faster & easier for me to play the parts instead of trying to get the software to do what I want it to....
> 
> I'm not knocking the on-board/built-in sounds until I try 'em, but I will most likely be triggering Superior Drummer or another drum vsti in my daw....
> 
> Thanks again!!!



looks like a decent kit. one thing to do (since you only have 2 cymbals) is use them as triggers and remember any parts where you may want a ride cymbal or ride bell etc., just change the voice later in midi editing. the new Mixcraft (7) has a feature panel where you can do that w/ the drums instead of sliding the midi notes frm say, crash 2 up to ride bell or maybe even gong. I'm sure other DAWs do the same.


----------



## minerman

Already ahead of ya Blues...If I need to change something, Reaper is really easy to do this....The hi-hat controller only has open/closed sounds, so I'll most likely have to overdub with my midi keyboard for the midi cc that controls the open-ness of the hh, but that won't be a problem either...

Pretty excited, I've been wanting an e-kit for years now....


----------



## blues_n_cues

minerman said:


> Already ahead of ya Blues...If I need to change something, Reaper is really easy to do this....The hi-hat controller only has open/closed sounds, so I'll most likely have to overdub with my midi keyboard for the midi cc that controls the open-ness of the hh, but that won't be a problem either...
> 
> Pretty excited, I've been wanting an e-kit for years now....



here's a guy here in Kentucky (among others on EBAY) that breaks down used kits & sell them piecemeal in case you want to add on or upgrade certain items.
drumzrus on eBay

drumzrus | eBay

he's good to deal with.


----------



## Australian

COPYRIGHT

I have a question about copyrighting your own songs. What are the current options for Copyright? I'm looking for the quickest and easiest.


I am just wondering how a song uploaded to Soundcloud would hold up in court for example?


----------



## jack daniels

BMI/ASCAP possibly?


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Australian said:


> COPYRIGHT
> 
> I have a question about copyrighting your own songs. What are the current options for Copyright? I'm looking for the quickest and easiest.
> 
> 
> I am just wondering how a song uploaded to Soundcloud would hold up in court for example?


This should probably be it's own thread too...

We used to do what was called a poor man's copyright. We'd record our songs on tape (CD nor other digital means were available at the time), then seal the tape up in a package & mail it to ourselves. The postmark & sealed package stored away in a box was our time reference. Obviously, the music had to exist on or before the date of the sealed package's date stamp.

These days it's pretty easy (in the States) pretty much, whatever you can fit on a CD, send the CD, w/ lyrics, chord charts, & any special key notation, for each track. Make sure to have a cover sheet outlining the song order, names & try & have the sheets in order. Fill out a copyright sheet for each piece & whatever processing fee. Used to be per song, but I think it's per CD now.

Your country should have a webpage outlining what is required in your region...

As far as Soundcloud. They should be able to help you, by stating that you uploaded the music at a specific time & they you have possession of the recording prior to that date. The only problem is that they can't prove that you performed it, or that it's your piece...

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl105.html

One thing I'll add though. Winning a copyright infringement case is not as common as one might think. You have to prove damages & that the work that you are claiming belongs to you was integral to the income of the product that the other party has.


----------



## Australian

Dogs of Doom said:


> This should probably be it's own thread too...This thread seems to be an umbrella for all recording related material. Unless theres a something I've missed?
> 
> We used to do what was called a poor man's copyright. We'd record our songs on tape (CD nor other digital means were available at the time), then seal the tape up in a package & mail it to ourselves. The postmark & sealed package stored away in a box was our time reference. Obviously, the music had to exist on or before the date of the sealed package's date stamp. We did that too. I have some that the tape and seal has become really brittle and come apart.
> 
> These days it's pretty easy (in the States) pretty much, whatever you can fit on a CD, send the CD, w/ lyrics, chord charts, & any special key notation, for each track. Make sure to have a cover sheet outlining the song order, names & try & have the sheets in order. Fill out a copyright sheet for each piece & whatever processing fee. Used to be per song, but I think it's per CD now.
> 
> Your country should have a webpage outlining what is required in your region...
> 
> As far as Soundcloud. They should be able to help you, by stating that you uploaded the music at a specific time & they you have possession of the recording prior to that date. The only problem is that they can't prove that you performed it, or that it's your piece...
> 
> Withe
> 
> 
> U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Registration of Music
> 
> One thing I'll add though. Winning a copyright infringement case is not as common as one might think. You have to prove damages & that the work that you are claiming belongs to you was integral to the income of the product that the other party has.






> As far as Soundcloud. They should be able to help you, by stating that you uploaded the music at a specific time & they you have possession of the recording prior to that date. The only problem is that they can't prove that you performed it, or that it's your piece...



^This one is more along the lines of what Im getting at, because with tags-name of author, date etc. -that you can imbed within the mp3 file or Wav that you upload to Soundcloud that should be proof enough. Then someone who challenges me would have to have proof by date that theirs was created before my copy of the songs upload date.

So to sum up as a hypothetical court case lets say that the real Author of the song provides:

-A Soundcloud upload complete with tags of author and date of upload embedded and unchangeable within Soundcloud.
-His DAW file showing the audio and midi tracks recorded.
-Also any Forums where he uploaded the finished song, date stamped by the Forum automatically.


The other party would have to have proof of dates of copyright that precede the above. In essence, uploading to Soundcloud, Forums etc. is just like the ancient "sending a cassette or CD to oneself" procedure. But I'm trying to find out how foolproof this would be.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Well, it would be good evidence that you had possession of music that resembled that w/ metadata intact. Not foolproof, unless if you or someone you can prove is singing on it. 

Still though, what protection are you looking for? It will help if someone is trying to come after you for infringement & you have the earlier date (provable). If you are going after someone else, you might not feel that you are fairly protected, because the laws make it hard to get any gainful compensation, because you have to prove intent, negligence, that the music was instrumental in their profit.

example: they have a 11 song CD. They come out w/ the 1st single. Your music. You would have a strong case that the success of their CD was contingent on having stole your music & make it a success. The CD would have not sought such a widespread success w/o your music. 

The flip side. The CD comes out & they do a single of every other song & yours doesn't even make a B side. It's album filler. If you win, they might either have to give you credit, or omit the song from the CD.

Punitive damages will vary accordingly. Strongly in case 1, not so much in the 2nd case. You might also have to prove that you were coming out w/ a successful project, that was inhibited by the prior release of this product of your said music...

Your best bet, is to copyright it & to file it w/ a publisher, as inferred by JD above...

This of course is subjective by country/regional copyright laws. I'm not a lawyer, but have dealt w/ & know people who've dealt w/ infringement issues...


----------



## blues_n_cues

jack daniels said:


> BMI/ASCAP possibly?



BMI/ASCAP/SESAC protects your work in the fact that they collect any royalties due to you but they do not Copyright the works or protect you from Copyright infringement.

Australian- Aussie law will differ from U.S. but basically once you record a work to a "medium" (CD,tape,vinyl,etc.) it is in effect Copyrighted.
you still must send in the paperwork to be protected from infringement under the law. the date of the Copyright notice you get back from the Gov't office will be the "legal" date of creation.


----------



## blues_n_cues

free cd cover art creator.
UnderCoverXP - Download


----------



## Australian

blues_n_cues said:


> BMI/ASCAP/SESAC protects your work in the fact that they collect any royalties due to you but they do not Copyright the works or protect you from Copyright infringement.
> 
> Australian- Aussie law will differ from U.S. but basically once you record a work to a "medium" (CD,tape,vinyl,etc.) it is in effect Copyrighted.
> you still must send in the paperwork to be protected from infringement under the law. the date of the Copyright notice you get back from the Gov't office will be the "legal" date of creation.





I'm a member of APRA and all we have to do is send a copy blah blah .
But I'm just looking for a quick way, and because it will be uploaded to Soundcloud anyway, this would be a handy way of protecting your song. You know like when you finish mixing a song late at night and you just want to post it up on a Forum. Or send it to a friend to ask for an opinion.


----------



## blues_n_cues

Australian said:


> I'm a member of APRA and all we have to do is send a copy blah blah .
> But I'm just looking for a quick way, and because it will be uploaded to Soundcloud anyway, this would be a handy way of protecting your song. You know like when you finish mixing a song late at night and you just want to post it up on a Forum. Or send it to a friend to ask for an opinion.



yes.just recording it copyrights it & (technically) posting it on the web gives notice of copyright w/ a "timestamp" it but will not protect it from infringement in a court of law. if that makes any sense.


----------



## blues_n_cues




----------



## Australian

You mean I shouldn't ask santa for a Neumann U87 nxt Christmas? 



Interesting mathematics, but it doesn't work out like that. Good equipment sets up the right vibe etc. Thats why your best recordings are done in a real studio.
Thats like saying lets record in 16 bit, because its going to be reduced to that for CD.


----------



## blues_n_cues

Australian said:


> You mean I shouldn't ask santa for a Neumann U87 nxt Christmas?
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting mathematics, but it doesn't work out like that. Good equipment sets up the right vibe etc. Thats why your best recordings are done in a real studio.



that wasn't the point. it doesn't matter,idjitz are still going to download it in mp3 format & play it through cheap Wallworld budz.


----------



## Australian

I get what you mean though. Its pretty batty. How it reduces drastically at the end of the chain.


----------



## shredless

Dont know what I got myself into....

this Mackie D8B is making my head explode

I got it all setup today, rack filled...tried to record...nothing!

after a few quick intuitive tweaks...I had a drum track and a quick guitar track
then after trying to get a 3rd track down...I touched something and threw it all out of wack
couldnt get sound, couldnt record, when I did get a record, I couldnt hear it

I started diving into the manual and it requires about 14 steps to record, then another 6 to listen back...
that doesnt seem very productive

quality wise...I dont think its better than anything else I used and its big as hell! But I need to give it a fair shake...maybe I just dont know what the hell Im doing...Im sure of that

if anyone has used one, Id love some pointers


----------



## blues_n_cues

hit a wrong SOLO button?
output routing? 
killed the monitoring?


----------



## shredless

blues_n_cues said:


> hit a wrong SOLO button?
> output routing?
> killed the monitoring?



Its a routing issue
those used to studio recording or live mix/record would probably be at home with it...Im used to something more simple

after looking at the manual it appears that it has 4 "layers" of 24 tracks
layer for input
layer for sends/receives
layer for mix
layer for master....or something like that

certain buttons flip the layers...

flipping changes all the faders

you input to first layer, but record to another...actually you send out to tape, then send back in and monitor there
Its just something I have to get used to
Im used to arming a track and going

plus on the video monitor you have the d8b and another screen is the HD "tape deck" Im used to them being seamless...and they really are 2 separate deals in this setup, though the d8b controls the deck


----------



## shredless

If I get used to working with it...Id like to build a sweet desk/rack combo in my room. It seems very complicated vs the pro tools/002 console I was using or just a mouse if I wanted to

the rack is like a telephone booth, most of that stuff I wont even use so that rack may find another home eventually

I added the Digi 11r and the Ultracurve, the rest came with the deal

no, lol, thats not my monitoring setup atop the rack...those are original alesis monitor ones that came with the setup


----------



## blues_n_cues

shredless said:


>



looks like you need a bigger room & a proper desk.keyboard stand for the board... 

now you'll have me out real estate hunting again today.I need a bigger room myself too.


----------



## shredless

Its definitely not ergonomic the way its set up at the moment

I wanted to make sure it ran proper and I could/would use it before getting crazy and rearranging everything in my small room

Ill either get the hang of it and decide its better for me than PC or Ill make sure it runs and sell it off


----------



## blues_n_cues

shredless said:


> Its definitely not ergonomic the way its set up at the moment
> 
> I wanted to make sure it ran proper and I could/would use it before getting crazy and rearranging everything in my small room
> 
> Ill either get the hang of it and decide its better for me than PC or Ill make sure it runs and sell it off



all I know is,don't buy this POS.
Studio RTA Producer Station Maple | Musician's Friend


----------



## shredless

This popped up near me

digi control 24 with desk....no gear or monitors (comp or sound)


----------



## blues_n_cues

I like that but I prefer roll away carts to the side for rack stuff or @ least an L shaped or curved desk.







lots of nice ideas here-
https://www.google.com/search?q=hom...ifgwT3zoPgDw&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1264&bih=548



I'm pretty sure I hate these guys,whoever they are.


----------



## blues_n_cues

ah,found it-






but "convertible" like this-






or something like this,but the lower cabinet & slide out reversed.


----------



## shredless

Im actually thinking of building one and Ive been cruising the images for cool ideas

Im pretty good with saws, routers & such

notice I didnt say "wood"?

but this one nite at a bar...ah never mind


----------



## minerman

Damn, those are some seriously nice studios there Blues...I'm almost ashamed to post a pic of my shabby little setup...

Got the e-drums today, here's a pic I took while doing the assembly:





Pretty impressed so far, basically plug/play with Reaper, I was playing/recording in about 2 minutes after getting 'em set up...Only thing I have to do now is learn how to play 'em.....


----------



## blues_n_cues

lol. don't feel bad.
my meager corner @ the moment-










the rest of the room-





and w/ the drums set up for a late night session(they fold closed & stay in the bedroom when not in use)-





I need to put the acoustic room treatments back up soon and build a couple more panels.I painted recently.


----------



## shredless

At least you "use" yours

I cant seem to stop dreaming, buying, trading and tweaking to actually get something done lol

Ive been reading the d8b manuals every nite and its starting to soak in, alot of cool things in this board, but still overwhelming to me

its hard to believe this thing cost 13 grand when it was new...+ the in/out cards and effects cards

I figure these young ladies dropped around 25 grand when they bought and set up this studio of theirs. And they still are musicians and they own guitars, amps, live sound gear, etc....they were pretty loaded I guess


----------



## blues_n_cues

shredless said:


> At least you "use" yours
> 
> I cant seem to stop dreaming, buying, trading and tweaking to actually get something done lol
> 
> Ive been reading the d8b manuals every nite and its starting to soak in, alot of cool things in this board, but still overwhelming to me
> 
> its hard to believe this thing cost 13 grand when it was new...+ the in/out cards and effects cards
> 
> I figure these young ladies dropped around 25 grand when they bought and set up this studio of theirs. And they still are musicians and they own guitars, amps, live sound gear, etc....they were pretty loaded I guess



guitar/mic>maybe a good tube preamp/compressor>audio interface>Mixcraft or Reaper=tunes getting done. 

easy like 'dat.


----------



## poeman33

The only way I've retained any flexibility is the gyrations I have to do to record in my room haha.


----------



## minerman

*Blues*: Thanks dude...I like the simple setup I have too...Basically the same thing as yours: guitar>amp>mic>interface>daw

I plan on making some acoustic panels for my room with some leftover Roxul Safe-N-Sound I have from the ISO cab build I did a while back....I've got enough to make 4-5 panels, I just need to buy the wood for the framing, & some cloth to cover it with...I'm doing some digging/research on the subject, & gonna try it before too much longer...The new pad has all sheetrock walls, & they're terrible for recording, I can actually tell a difference with my guitar tracks' raw sounds compared to the other places I've recorded, even with close-mics...

I'm pretty happy with the little e-kit I got, sure I'll have to learn to play a lot better, but it sure beats (pun intended ) hand-programming for hours on end...I'll just have to play these e-drums for hours on end now...

*Shredless*: Dude, that looks like a really cool setup you have, but it also seems overly complicated to me....It would be cool to have actual faders for mixing, but I like it pretty simple myself...Hope you get it all sorted man, again, looks like a great recording setup...


----------



## minerman

Ok, here's another shitty cellphone pic of my recording setup, got the e-drums set up in the corner, & I'm pretty happy with 'em....Basically plug/play with my daw/software, I was expecting to have to jump through hoops to get 'em set up to record, but that wasn't the case...Now all I have to do is learn how to play 'em properly.....


----------



## johnfv

Some really nice rooms Blues posted, definitely makes me jealous. I've not spent significant time in a "proper" studio in several years now. I figured I'd be brave enough to post my meager mixing corner as well. The most important item? Marshall Forum on the monitor


----------



## blues_n_cues

johnfv said:


> Some really nice rooms Blues posted, definitely makes me jealous. I've not spent significant time in a "proper" studio in several years now. I figured I'd be brave enough to post my meager mixing corner as well. The most important item? Marshall Forum on the monitor



I spy a Mackie Big Knob.
been wanting one of those but need a control room first.lol


----------



## blues_n_cues

minerman said:


> Ok, here's another shitty cellphone pic of my recording setup, got the e-drums set up in the corner, & I'm pretty happy with 'em....Basically plug/play with my daw/software, I was expecting to have to jump through hoops to get 'em set up to record, but that wasn't the case...Now all I have to do is learn how to play 'em properly.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> x



a wireless mouse & that little table beside the drums helps when laying drum tracks.

that is,unless you can trigger your DAW record commands w/ an iphone/pad as a remote.

or..
if you want to get really fancy,the UMI3 usb foot controller (and it's American made.)-
logidy.com


----------



## minerman

Nice setup John, I had the same page of the forum on my monitor in my pic too...

Blues: That's exactly why I have the little table over there dude, so I can use my wireless mouse to control my daw from behind the drums....I'll have to check into the idea about using an ipad to control the daw, I've got a Nook tablet, dunno if it'd work or not, but I'm gonna do some digging/searching to see what I can find out about it..

Really though, the wireless mouse works pretty good, the only thing my monitor is hard to see from across the room, but that gives me an excuse to get a bigger monitor....


----------



## shredless

minerman said:


> *Blues*:
> 
> *Shredless*: Dude, that looks like a really cool setup you have, but it also seems overly complicated to me....It would be cool to have actual faders for mixing, but I like it pretty simple myself...Hope you get it all sorted man, again, looks like a great recording setup...



It is, yet it isnt....I mean there is alot going on in the rack, but none is really for the mackie...the board and its cpu and the 24 track hard disc recorder

the complicated part is learning to run that board...that is complicated...2 women were tearin it up...so I know it cant be that bad....but its not as simple as pc recording in a daw. I do believe Ive given up on it and am going to sell it all

I knew I couldnt lose even if I didnt want to keep it, so it was cool and worth rolling the dice. But my other setup is just a breeze and I am very used to just using a mouse, so the faders are just cool to look at. I have a digi 002 if I want faders....


----------



## johnfv

*Latest live from the garage*

I plan to replace the scratch vocals and some of the guitar stuff but these raw basic tracks turned out pretty well. It's 4 guys in a garage 

http://johnviehweg.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/DoYa15-01-24_2.mp3

Work In Progress | John Viehweg


----------



## 12barjunkie

I don't know anything about Allen and Heath, but this looks like a pretty good deal. Nice custom desk and patchbays are included:

https://reverb.com/item/456442-allen-heath-ahb-system-8-console


----------



## blues_n_cues

12barjunkie said:


> I don't know anything about Allen and Heath, but this looks like a pretty good deal. Nice custom desk and patchbays are included:
> 
> https://reverb.com/item/456442-allen-heath-ahb-system-8-console



helluva deal.
A&H is good stuff.


----------



## poeman33

One late xmas gift my wife got me is very useful in my tiny setup. One of those scissor microphone stands. I have it on my computer desk. So I can sing or check levels without having to crane my neck to look at the screen all the time. It's good for Skype too.


----------



## blues_n_cues

here ya go,DIY pop screen & GOBO-
http://www.marshallforum.com/tone-zone/55260-d-i-y-mic-iso-shield-pop-filter.html

password is marshall-
Gobo And Pop Screen Photos by gypsyseagod | Photobucket


----------



## blues_n_cues

poeman33 said:


> One late xmas gift my wife got me is very useful in my tiny setup. One of those scissor microphone stands. I have it on my computer desk. So I can sing or check levels without having to crane my neck to look at the screen all the time. It's good for Skype too.



I got these plus the adapter bushings for different things-
Talent MS-4 Telescopic Boom 20"-35"






Parts Express is a lot cheaper on stands & things but just as good.
Talent MS-3 Low Profile Tripod Mic Stand w/Telescopic Boom

desktop-
Gator Frameworks GFW-MIC-0251 Wireless Mic Mini Tripod Desktop Stand

heavy base mini stand-
Peavey Table Top Mic Stand


----------



## shredless

What a awesome sounding microphone!

Ive only had one condenser mic, bought one when I first started and it picked up way too much of everything else around and I didnt have a iso booth. Someone suggested a Beta58 for vocals as it may limit those noises around me.
thats all Ive used forever.

Well in this studio rig I got I ended up with a Audio Technica AT4050/CM5
and tried it out today. Sounds fantastic and the noise isnt as bad as I expected. I plan to make some sort of iso booth, corner, large box...etc

but excited about how good it sounds


----------



## johnfv

shredless said:


> ...Audio Technica AT4050/CM5...


Those AT large diaphragm condenser mics are excellent. Congrats!


----------



## shredless

It was a "throw in" with the studio gear while I was there....she flipped open the box and showed me, but I remembered it had no shockmount, or so I thought. So Ive had it in my mind to look out for a mount and I opened it today and the mount is there

Im thinking while I was loading and she was still packing she must have found it...cuz it wasnt there


----------



## blues_n_cues

shredless said:


> What a awesome sounding microphone!
> 
> Ive only had one condenser mic, bought one when I first started and it picked up way too much of everything else around and I didnt have a iso booth. Someone suggested a Beta58 for vocals as it may limit those noises around me.
> thats all Ive used forever.
> 
> Well in this studio rig I got I ended up with a Audio Technica AT4050/CM5
> and tried it out today. Sounds fantastic and the noise isnt as bad as I expected. I plan to make some sort of iso booth, corner, large box...etc
> 
> but excited about how good it sounds



2 posts up- "DIY pop screen & GOBO.


----------



## blues_n_cues

new Tascam US-16X08
Product: US-16x08 | TASCAM

TASCAM US-16x08 USB Audio Interface | Musician's Friend


----------



## dptone5

Here is my old fashioned set-up. Shown is my Boss BR-1600CD. I also have a Boss BR-600 and a Korg D1600 MKII. Lately, I've been actually recording a click track on the Korg, saving the .wav file and uploading it to the Boss BR-600. For some reason, mic'd guitars record warmer on the cheapest unit. I then upload the guitar tracks to the Korg, record bass and drums and mix. I like the FX on the Korg a lot.

What I need to try is using the Lexicon to add FX to certain tracks. The Korg is the only unit I have with an AUX out that allows me to take a single track, send it to the FX unit and return it for recording it with the FX.

I have a lot to learn. I'm sure getting a computer and learning a DAW will be in my future. This is a GREAT thread Blues!! Thanks for starting it!!

DP


----------



## minerman

Nice setup DP....Looks like we have the same desk...are you monitors M-Audio BX-8's??? That's what I have...I've read a lot of people don't like 'em, but I got a really good deal on mine used, & haven't had any trouble with 'em...

Again, nice dude!!!!


----------



## Dogs of Doom

For all you home studio bassists...






SVT in a box...

It's the real deal! only $200 list...

It sounds awesome on it's own, but, don't let that stop you from running it up front w/ a bass amp, like the SVT...


----------



## Australian

DPTONE5 said:


> Here is my old fashioned set-up. Shown is my Boss BR-1600CD. I also have a Boss BR-600 and a Korg D1600 MKII. Lately, I've been actually recording a click track on the Korg, saving the .wav file and uploading it to the Boss BR-600. For some reason, mic'd guitars record warmer on the cheapest unit. I then upload the guitar tracks to the Korg, record bass and drums and mix. I like the FX on the Korg a lot.
> 
> What I need to try is using the Lexicon to add FX to certain tracks. The Korg is the only unit I have with an AUX out that allows me to take a single track, send it to the FX unit and return it for recording it with the FX.
> 
> I have a lot to learn. I'm sure getting a computer and learning a DAW will be in my future. This is a GREAT thread Blues!! Thanks for starting it!!
> 
> DP





Do I spot a Digi 2101?  Ive still got mine, and its sitting pretty in my rack. Do you use it much?


----------



## Australian

shredless said:


> If I get used to working with it...Id like to build a sweet desk/rack combo in my room. It seems very complicated vs the pro tools/002 console I was using or just a mouse if I wanted to
> 
> the rack is like a telephone booth, most of that stuff I wont even use so that rack may find another home eventually
> 
> I added the Digi 11r and the Ultracurve, the rest came with the deal
> 
> no, lol, thats not my monitoring setup atop the rack...those are original alesis monitor ones that came with the setup




Wow look at that big tall rack half full of things you'll never have use for. All you need on the wall now is a photo of Raquel Welch on the back of a brontosaurus to give it a final chronological touch.


----------



## blues_n_cues

Dogs of Doom said:


> For all you home studio bassists...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SVT in a box...
> 
> It's the real deal! only $200 list...
> 
> It sounds awesome on it's own, but, don't let that stop you from running it up front w/ a bass amp, like the SVT...



it's way high on my list.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7Tv_8W67Q[/ame]


----------



## blues_n_cues

inexpensive gear locker w/ mods-
Mainstays Storage Cabinet, Alder - Walmart.com

added some hooks for cables & stick-on LED lights-











hook for the 'phones-





the downside is it filled up quickly.gear whore that I am I already need another one.


----------



## shredless

If I may defend the rack...

it was free and delivered...I dont care for it, but figured Id fill er up and turn out the lights and gaze at it in the dark...keep me from yankin off as much...maybe

the bottom 4 pieces are

d8b CPU....lol
HD 24 track recorder

Alesis masterlink cd recorder....outdated and redundant in PC recording...but a must with the d8b...but I can sell for 400

another HD 24 track....can sell for 250

next we have behringer ultracurve 31 band with RTA and mic...cool to look at
but worthless to sell....I got it for free

Avid Eleven Rack...nice piece of gear, keeper and I use it

behringer eurorack pro 8 channel mixer...nice to have, I guess...would add value to the smaller 24 track HD recorder, esp when stuck in a 6 space road case...where it came from

BBE sonic maximizer...love em, but once you push the button you need to attend meetings for addiction if you choose to turn it off
worthless

Alesis microverb 4...dont even know if it works...it fills a rack space though

fender power supply with lights!!! I can definetly use that, you should see under my desk...oh, while your down there

I left a big open spot to fit my adcom 5 channel amp and pioneer preamp/tuner...cuz I had big plans to locate it there...but then I couldnt reach it from my PC

alesis ra100 stereo power amp, came with the d8b haul....along with the speakers on top...they all suck and arent worth more than a case of good beer

symetrix 2 channel amp, they had it running as a headphone amp somehow...with a homemade distribution box....???? it worked that way...probably couldnt trade it for a good joint

Tascam 302 tape deck, another freebie with the haul...sold it for 75 bucks already...?????? crazy people looking for old stuff


----------



## blues_n_cues

shredless said:


> alesis ra100 stereo power amp, came with the d8b haul....



I've been wanting one of these.....


----------



## poeman33

I don't know what that one pic had to do with...oh wait...I just got it. 

Also, on the vocal mikes, I use an AT2035 and bought one of these sheilds. You could probably build one, but this is handy and works quite well.


----------



## shredless

blues_n_cues said:


> I've been wanting one of these.....



Ive realized as soon as I get rid of something like this, Ill need it. Im thinking about putting it and the 11rack in a case for a different live rig...of course those are like most thoughts...never coming to fruition


----------



## shredless

poeman33 said:


> I don't know what that one pic had to do with...oh wait...I just got it.
> 
> Also, on the vocal mikes, I use an AT2035 and bought one of these sheilds. You could probably build one, but this is handy and works quite well.



I have 12 large sheets of auralex pyramid egg crates...I figured one could get fashioned into one of these


----------



## dptone5

minerman said:


> Nice setup DP....Looks like we have the same desk...are you monitors M-Audio BX-8's??? That's what I have...I've read a lot of people don't like 'em, but I got a really good deal on mine used, & haven't had any trouble with 'em...
> 
> Again, nice dude!!!!



Thank you minerman. Yep, you got it right. M-Audio BX-8's. These were my old bands that were owned by the group. When we disbanded, I picked them up for a steal. I really like them. Not sure what people don't like about them, but I find them to be very articulate.

DP


----------



## dptone5

Australian said:


> Do I spot a Digi 2101?  Ive still got mine, and its sitting pretty in my rack. Do you use it much?



Hey Australian my friend. Yep, that is the 2101. I don't use it much anymore, but if I sell it, I may get $150!! LOL

After spending over $1k for it in the mid-90's, it has some good FX and cool things I may have use for in the future, so it's a keeper.

Do you use your much?


----------



## shredless

Im getting the hang of this mackie D8B

what a steep learning curve, and Im only good at tracking and playback

I havent even got a clue how to use the effects yet or master

Im debating as to wether its worth having or dumping...

Its big and cool as ****, its working well, it sounds great
I have it paired up with a mastering cd deck as well for when the master phase comes in

thing is, all this can be done within a PC daw...easier


----------



## Australian

shredless said:


> Im getting the hang of this mackie D8B
> 
> what a steep learning curve, and Im only good at tracking and playback
> 
> I havent even got a clue how to use the effects yet or master
> 
> Im debating as to wether its worth having or dumping...
> 
> Its big and cool as ****, its working well, it sounds great
> I have it paired up with a mastering cd deck as well for when the master phase comes in
> 
> thing is, all this can be done within a PC daw...easier:scratch:




Thats my point. You'll get more done with a Computer DAW and those days are gone when a comp plugins don't come close to what hardware units produce..


----------



## Australian

DPTONE5 said:


> Hey Australian my friend. Yep, that is the 2101. I don't use it much anymore, but if I sell it, I may get $150!! LOL
> 
> After spending over $1k for it in the mid-90's, it has some good FX and cool things I may have use for in the future, so it's a keeper.
> 
> Do you use your much?




Yeah, lately I've been mucking around with some sounds on it. I remember when they just came out in the 90's. I went and tried one out, and it sounded incredible! It was the unit to have! I paid $1500 for mine at the time, and that was half price. I think that the retail here was $3000.

But like you said to sell it for a few hundred...its better to keep it. I bought an upgrade chip from a guy in Denmark years ago and never bothered to install it, but may do that soon. Nocrotec Shop - Digitech upgrade EPROM chips and parts


----------



## SmokeyDopey

Phase would be a good subject. I see it is often misunderstood, assumed it's either _in phase_ or _out of phase_.

To get 2 mics perfectly aligned and 100% in phase I think is nearly impossible (at least when very up close to a sound source). There are ways to get multiple mics phase coherent, but when using 2 or more mics close to a sound source it can be a tricky situation. Frustrating at times, but loads of fun.


----------



## jack daniels

Phase Adjuster

Radial Phazer


----------



## Australian

SmokeyDopey said:


> Phase would be a good subject. I see it is often misunderstood, assumed it's either _in phase_ or _out of phase_.
> 
> To get 2 mics perfectly aligned and 100% in phase I think is nearly impossible (at least when very up close to a sound source). There are ways to get multiple mics phase coherent, but when using 2 or more mics close to a sound source it can be a tricky situation. Frustrating at times, but loads of fun.





Same length cable("lead" for poms). Same distance from the cab will help. 
If the sound arrives at each mic at the same time, then that is going to help.
Synthetic phase correction in DAW's sound nasty, so its better to get it right in real time.


----------



## SmokeyDopey

If the budget doesnt fit, one can learn and understand phase. I dont know what that is or how it works, but I can guess what it does. I just see a box taking the fun out of the art of mic'ing


----------



## jack daniels

Example...






Using the JDX with a mic and the Phazer
For even more fun, combine the direct sound of the JDX with a microphone. Use the Radial Phazer to time-align the two signals and be prepared for the biggest, fattest, most amazing tones ever. Careful… this is addictive!


----------



## SmokeyDopey

Yeah Aussie, but I was meaning more in a "microscopic" level. Speaker imperfections, slight differences in the mic, yada yada... A lot we don't even perceive probably. Just wanted to mention that phase isn't black and white.


"If you flip the phase on 1 channel and the bass goes away, then flip it back, it's in phase dude, ch-yeah."


----------



## jack daniels

I'll try to find some more examples if you like.


----------



## Australian

SmokeyDopey said:


> Yeah Aussie, I get it. I was meaning more in a "microscopic" level. Speaker imperfections, slight differences in the mic, yada yada... A lot we don't even perceive probably. Just wanted to mention that phase isn't black and white.




I better sit back and learn then. Continue...


----------



## jack daniels

Using the Phazer in a kick drum
Engineers love to combine the attack of the batter head with the boom of a second mic. The Phazer elevates the effect by letting you combine the two in perfect sync. Simply insert the Phazer on the batter head channel, rotate the phase control and in seconds you are there. 






Using the Phazer with a guitar amp
Sometimes, getting a great guitar sound seems to take forever. This is due to irregularities such as stage resonance, room acoustics and a slight shift in mic position. Combine a Radial JDX direct box with the usual SM57 on the speaker. Phaze adjust the JDX and in seconds, you will get huge guitar sounds.






Using the Phazer to solve bass problems
In smaller venues, the bass level coming off the stage can often compete with the PA system making it hard to mix. Combine the direct feed from the bass amp using a JDX direct box and phase align it to the PA using the Phazer. You will be amazed at how this simple process will clean up your mix.


Phazer™ Class-A Phase Adjuster
Part No. R800 1450 

Time align two signals for exceptional clarity
100% analogue, does not 'step' like digital delay
Low-pass filter lets you focus the effect
Once you try it, you will never mix without
The Radial Phazer™ is an analogue phase alignment tool that lets you bring two sound sources together so that the fundamentals play in sync. Once in phase, the results are impressive: On electric guitar; you can combine the direct feed of an amp with a room mic to create fat rich tones. On a kick drum, combine the 'attack' sound from a batter head mic with the 'boom' captured by the outer shell mic. On a snare drum, combine the top and bottom mics and on acoustic instruments, combine a close 'spot' mic with a room mic to capture textures like never before.

The Phazer is designed from the ground up for optimum sound quality. It employs full-size 100% discreet class-A electronics to deliver the warmth and thickness that is simply not possible with chip based devices. This results in smooth, natural sounding phase curves which are particularly noticeable in the lower frequency spectrum. 0º to 180º phase adjustment is performed with a single knob making it easy to zone-in on the sweet spot. For the more adventurous, a 180º polarity reverse switch accesses the 181º to 360º range and lets you create weird to absurd 'Phazed' tonal textures. This is augmented with a variable low-pass filter that lets you focus the effect in the lower frequency spectrum - where phasing is most audible.

Built Radial tough for the road, the Phazer is equipped with an innovative book-end design that creates a protective zone around the knobs and switches. Construction is 14-gauge steel with an internal I-beam frame that protects the sensitive electronics in even the harshest touring environments. A full bottom no-slip pad provides electrical insulation to eliminate electrical bonding and mechanical isolation to reduce mishap.

The Radial Phazer is a creative tool for the studio designed to expand your tonal palette. Live, it delivers great sound fast. Once you try one, you will never mix without!


----------



## blues_n_cues

poeman33 said:


> I don't know what that one pic had to do with...oh wait...I just got it.
> 
> Also, on the vocal mikes, I use an AT2035 and bought one of these sheilds. You could probably build one, but this is handy and works quite well.



that's what I posted. I built one using stud strapping,a couple of disposable paint roller screens,Auralex foam,project board(for backing),and zip ties w/ the mounts-


----------



## blues_n_cues

SmokeyDopey said:


> If the budget doesnt fit, one can learn and understand phase. I dont know what that is or how it works, but I can guess what it does. I just see a box taking the fun out of the art of mic'ing



Understanding Audio Phase and Correcting Issues - Blog - Universal Audio

(note) there is a typo-
"the 3:1 Rule of Mic Placement. Put simply, when using two microphones to record a source, try placing the second mic three times the distance from the first mic, as the first mic is from the source. So if the first mic is one foot from a source, the second mic should be placed three feet from the second *(first)* mic. Using this simple 3:1 rule can minimize phase problems created by the time delay between mics."

"Of course, if the problem doesn’t show itself until you’re mixing down, it’s often possible to pull the tracks up in your DAW, zoom in close on their waveforms, and slightly nudge one track just a bit. You’d be amazed what a difference just moving a track by one or two milliseconds can make."

sometimes natural phase is desireable which can be done by manually double or triple tracking- think, most Randy Rhoads stuff.


----------



## scat7s

that is one of the beauties of using a computer. phase issues? simply realign the track. 

im not saying i understand phase or how to properly mic an instrument for a specific mix, but if things sound funny/phasey, you can fix it after the fact. thats what i do when i run into such trouble anyway. perhaps thats not the best or right way to do it....dunno. but it seems to work ok most times.


----------



## bulldozer1984

scat7s said:


> that is one of the beauties of using a computer. phase issues? simply realign the track.
> 
> im not saying i understand phase or how to properly mic an instrument for a specific mix, but if things sound funny/phasey, you can fix it after the fact. thats what i do when i run into such trouble anyway. perhaps thats not the best or right way to do it....dunno. but it seems to work ok most times.



That's the beauty of music production, there are no specific right ways of doing anything. Certain things are done a certain way, but there are plenty of unorthodox tricks to be had.


----------



## Bubba po

SmokeyDopey said:


> Phase would be a good subject. I see it is often misunderstood, assumed it's either _in phase_ or _out of phase_.
> 
> To get 2 mics perfectly aligned and 100% in phase I think is nearly impossible (at least when very up close to a sound source). There are ways to get multiple mics phase coherent, but when using 2 or more mics close to a sound source it can be a tricky situation. Frustrating at times, but loads of fun.




It's the easiest thing in the world with a DAW. You just zoom into the waveform and line up the recorded sounds with the nudge function. If they're too far out you invert the phase of one of them with a little virtual button.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

blues_n_cues said:


> sometimes natural phase is desireable...


Yes, phase is the best way to create a stereo image. I think though, that when you get phase issues coming in at a single capture point, you need to be able to figure it out before you get beyond the point of no return.

If you look to that boundary article I posted, you'll note that reducing the phasing of different reflections vs the source point is paramount, whereas, 2 different sourced tracks are easy to work w/...

If you do m/s mic'ing, you use phase to create a stereo image. Aspen Pittman uses the same theory to make his center point stereo speaker...

CENTER POINT STEREO


----------



## SmokeyDopey

scat7s said:


> that is one of the beauties of using a computer. phase issues? simply realign the track.
> 
> im not saying i understand phase or how to properly mic an instrument for a specific mix, but if things sound funny/phasey, you can fix it after the fact. thats what i do when i run into such trouble anyway. perhaps thats not the best or right way to do it....dunno. but it seems to work ok most times.



To adjust in your DAW is perfectly fine. The issue is when, for example, 2 mics we're recorded onto the same track. You're stuck with that. In other words you're fukt. Unless you re-record, but that isn't always an option.

One cool thing is you can EQ without even touching an EQ, just by moving mics around (or by nudging it a milisecond or 2 in the DAW). Of course it isn't the same as using an actual EQ, but it is another way to give a sound a certain "shape".


----------



## scat7s

i rarely if ever dump two mics into a single track. i avoid it whenever possible anyway for the flexibility it grants you later. levels, phase, pan, eq....

im not experienced enough to have confidence that ill get it right from the start.


----------



## SmokeyDopey

Nah, me niether. But sometimes you're forced when recording a full band with only a couple tracks to record onto.


----------



## minerman

Ok guys, here's my first recording with the new e-drum kit....I'm doing a cover of Skynyrd's "Simple Man" for the "album"...

The only thing that's actually me on this right now are the drums, I'm gonna record all the parts probably today (guitars, bass, vocals)...If you're wondering, this is a Rock Band multi-track I have that I can open in Reaper, & seperate all the instruments...

Of course, I had to go back in the daw to re-record/fix/edit, & add double cymbal crashes, but I think my drums are gonna work out a lot better than hand-programming those bastards, waaaay faster like this (for me anyway)...

I recorded this sending the midi from my Yamaha DTX400 e-kit, triggering Toontrack's "Made of Metal" in Superior Drummer 2...

Lovin' the new e-drums over here!!!

Lemme know what you guys think... 

*Simple Man cover*


----------



## bulldozer1984

minerman said:


> Ok guys, here's my first recording with the new e-drum kit....I'm doing a cover of Skynyrd's "Simple Man" for the "album"...
> 
> The only thing that's actually me on this right now are the drums, I'm gonna record all the parts probably today (guitars, bass, vocals)...If you're wondering, this is a Rock Band multi-track I have that I can open in Reaper, & seperate all the instruments...
> 
> Of course, I had to go back in the daw to re-record/fix/edit, & add double cymbal crashes, but I think my drums are gonna work out a lot better than hand-programming those bastards, waaaay faster like this (for me anyway)...
> 
> I recorded this sending the midi from my Yamaha DTX400 e-kit, triggering Toontrack's "Made of Metal" in Superior Drummer 2...
> 
> Lovin' the new e-drums over here!!!
> 
> Lemme know what you guys think...
> 
> *Simple Man cover*



Mate, i really enjoyed that. I absolutely love that tune.. 

I little constructive critism if I may ? There were just a couple of spots where the vocal was a little pitchy. A bit of Waves Tune would fix that in a flash though.. 

The production was very slick.. Nice job mate.. I wish I could get Superior Drummer to sound that good. We also trigger it from an E Kit. I obviously lack some skills in that department.


----------



## minerman

Thanks 'Dozer, I appreciate the compliments...I'm not a drummer, so I obviously had to go in & fix the midi (my hi-hat foot controller only triggers open/closed, there's no in-between unless I go in & change the midi, or record CC's with my midi keyboard), plus add double crash cymbals here/there (my e-kit only has one crash & one ride), but the e-kit is gonna work for me, it's much, much faster & easier than hand programming...

On the vocals, I'm sorry dude, but I'm not gonna go in & fix the pitch issues...

Everything except the drums are a Rock Band multi-track thing, where I can seperate the instruments & learn how their guitars, bass, etc., sound solo'd....I don't know if these are the real artist's tracks or not, but they sure sound like 'em to me...If they are, then that' Ronnie Van Zant's vocals dude... 


I started re-tracking my guitar parts today, I'll post my version when I get it finished...

Thanks again!!!


----------



## blues_n_cues

minerman said:


> Ok guys, here's my first recording with the new e-drum kit....I'm doing a cover of Skynyrd's "Simple Man" for the "album"...
> 
> The only thing that's actually me on this right now are the drums, I'm gonna record all the parts probably today (guitars, bass, vocals)...If you're wondering, this is a Rock Band multi-track I have that I can open in Reaper, & seperate all the instruments...
> 
> Of course, I had to go back in the daw to re-record/fix/edit, & add double cymbal crashes, but I think my drums are gonna work out a lot better than hand-programming those bastards, waaaay faster like this (for me anyway)...
> 
> I recorded this sending the midi from my Yamaha DTX400 e-kit, triggering Toontrack's "Made of Metal" in Superior Drummer 2...
> 
> Lovin' the new e-drums over here!!!
> 
> Lemme know what you guys think...
> 
> *Simple Man cover*



sounds good. 
the bass drum-remove the mids,maybe boost the bottom a hair,leave a little hi-mid for the "snap" & add compression.
http://www.prosoundweb.com/article/eq_and_compression_techniques_pt2_drums/

http://therecordingrevolution.com/2014/06/19/mixing-drums-magic-with-only-eq-and-compression-video/


----------



## bulldozer1984

minerman said:


> Thanks 'Dozer, I appreciate the compliments...I'm not a drummer, so I obviously had to go in & fix the midi (my hi-hat foot controller only triggers open/closed, there's no in-between unless I go in & change the midi, or record CC's with my midi keyboard), plus add double crash cymbals here/there (my e-kit only has one crash & one ride), but the e-kit is gonna work for me, it's much, much faster & easier than hand programming...
> 
> On the vocals, I'm sorry dude, but I'm not gonna go in & fix the pitch issues...
> 
> Everything except the drums are a Rock Band multi-track thing, where I can seperate the instruments & learn how their guitars, bass, etc., sound solo'd....I don't know if these are the real artist's tracks or not, but they sure sound like 'em to me...If they are, then that' Ronnie Van Zant's vocals dude...
> 
> 
> I started re-tracking my guitar parts today, I'll post my version when I get it finished...
> 
> Thanks again!!!



The "RockBand" tracks are indeed covers if they are anything like Guitar Hero. Maybe my ears are painted on ?

Yes my drummer has an Alesis kit and it false triggers all the time so I know all about that.. Question. When i mix the drums, I use SD's mixer to solo each track while mixing down in order to bring in each mic as its own stem in my DAW . Is there an easier way that I am not smart enough to think of ?


----------



## minerman

Thanks Blues, but this is far from being finished, the drum sounds are actually "scratch", as I just used that particular EZD kit because it sounded close to what I'm after, & it's pretty light on RAM/resources...I've already replaced those sounds with one of my "franken-kits" I have saved in Reaper, using Superior/Toontrack combined with Steven Slate Drums (I mainly use Toontrack's hh, oh's & toms, with Slate's kick/snares)...

I started tracking my own instruments on this today too, might have it finished (tracking anyway) by tomorrow, just depends on what kind of shit comes up that takes me away from my music....

All in all, I'm pretty happy with the e-kit, it's already saved me a bunch of time versus the hand-programming thing, even if I do have to go into the midi editor to change/fix things...

For a $500/entry-level kit, it's great!!!


----------



## blues_n_cues

minerman said:


> All in all, I'm pretty happy with the e-kit, it's already saved me a bunch of time versus the hand-programming thing, even if I do have to go into the midi editor to change/fix things...
> 
> For a $500/entry-level kit, it's great!!!



Ihear ya,plus I just love playing drums on occasion. I miss my 9 piece acoustic set @ times but don't miss setting it up & mic'ing it.lol
now I need to work out a double bass pedal for certain things because it's a b*tch w/ a midi keyboard.

have you found the gong in your kit yet?


----------



## minerman

*Dozer*: There's an option in Superior to render the stems from within itself dude, I've done it before, but I can't remember how...Maybe check the manual to see how...I always use the freeze function in Reaper when I get my tracks how I want 'em...

FWIW dude, I always make my Superior tracks a multi-out template in Reaper, so I can add my own eq, compression, saturation, etc., & so I can send each kit piece to different reverbs at different levels (IE: a snare will usually sound better than a kick reverb on it, so I usually don't have very much 'verb on my kick...)....If there's anything I can help you with Dozer, lemme know dude...

On the Rock Band track I have dude, I know a few of 'em are covers, but, some of 'em really, really sound like the real artists man...If all the tracks I have are covers, there are some really, really talented people out there that wanna sound like someone else...lol...

Lemme know if I can help ya dude...


*Blues*: Haven't really messed with the internal sounds that much. Just enough to hear that the drum sounds I have on my pc a far better...My Yamaha kit uses the hi-hat controller as a second kick pedal on one of the kits....Dunno if it sends midi to the daw like that or not though...


----------



## Dmann

Here is some funny stuff, and some good tips too. Just remember this is aimed at young metal heads just starting out as opposed to old dogs who've played classic rock for 30 years, but the methods still apply.... In my studio experience, it's been all about the mic. always. dialing in the tone on the amp is not as important as mic placement. and I agree with the SM57 is the mic to use for metal.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfEh79A0b0U[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lw25dOC7H9M[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUzEP63sH7M[/ame]


----------



## minerman

Lol....Yeah dude, Glenn is brutally honest about some things, but the guy definitely knows how to track/record...I've watched those vids countless times myself....Good stuff....pretty funny too...lol


----------



## JimiRules

Does anybody here use Mixcraft? My band does it's recording on a Tascam DP 32 and we really like it. The way we record is to play the backing track live giving each instrument it's own track, and then we overdub leads, fills, backing vocals, and maybe another guitar part if I have to go from clean to dirty. Then I'd go in and EQ each instrument, get all the levels set, do a mixdown, and then transfer the track to mixcraft 6 and run it through the limiter to bring it up to CD volume.

We recorded a song last week and I overdubbed the solo today and all that needs done is the back up vocals. I was messing around and I decided to try adding each individual track to mixcraft and try to do a quick mix and mixdown using Mixcraft instead of doing the mixdown on the Tascam. My problem was that I wasn't able to get the guitar solo to line up where it should go in the song. I was able to get the drums, bass, lead vocal, and bass to line up perfect, but the solo I couldn't. I was able to get it to start where it should, but for some reason it seemed to speed up just a tad and it would sound like it was out of wack. It wasn't major, but just enough to drive me crazy. At first I thought maybe my timing was off a bit when I recorded it, but when I play the song on my tascam the timing is right how it should be. Has anybody had this problem on mixcraft?


----------



## blues_n_cues

I use Mixcraft but haven't had that problem. which version are you using?


----------



## bulldozer1984

JimiRules said:


> Does anybody here use Mixcraft? My band does it's recording on a Tascam DP 32 and we really like it. The way we record is to play the backing track live giving each instrument it's own track, and then we overdub leads, fills, backing vocals, and maybe another guitar part if I have to go from clean to dirty. Then I'd go in and EQ each instrument, get all the levels set, do a mixdown, and then transfer the track to mixcraft 6 and run it through the limiter to bring it up to CD volume.
> 
> We recorded a song last week and I overdubbed the solo today and all that needs done is the back up vocals. I was messing around and I decided to try adding each individual track to mixcraft and try to do a quick mix and mixdown using Mixcraft instead of doing the mixdown on the Tascam. My problem was that I wasn't able to get the guitar solo to line up where it should go in the song. I was able to get the drums, bass, lead vocal, and bass to line up perfect, but the solo I couldn't. I was able to get it to start where it should, but for some reason it seemed to speed up just a tad and it would sound like it was out of wack. It wasn't major, but just enough to drive me crazy. At first I thought maybe my timing was off a bit when I recorded it, but when I play the song on my tascam the timing is right how it should be. Has anybody had this problem on mixcraft?



Is the tempo for the track set correctly ? And is the sample rate set correctly ?


----------



## JimiRules

I'm using Mixcraft 6. I'm not sure about the bitrate and tempo settings. I'm still in the learning phase. It was pretty simple when I imported an already mixed track. Working on each individual instrument is much more challenging! Is it common for the tempo to get out of whack when importing an overdubbed track?


----------



## JimiRules

I think I have found out how to fix the problem. I went into Mixcraft and selected each of the tracks and went under the sound tab to see the properties of each file. I noticed that there were two boxes, one that was the length of the track and the other was marked offset. I went into the solo track and saw how many seconds it was offset from the rest of the other tracks. There I was able to move the track in more precise increments compared to just selecting the track and trying to drag it to the proper location. After messing around with it, I was able to get it to line up perfectly. Looks like I learned something new!


----------



## blues_n_cues

JimiRules said:


> I think I have found out how to fix the problem. I went into Mixcraft and selected each of the tracks and went under the sound tab to see the properties of each file. I noticed that there were two boxes, one that was the length of the track and the other was marked offset. I went into the solo track and saw how many seconds it was offset from the rest of the other tracks. There I was able to move the track in more precise increments compared to just selecting the track and trying to drag it to the proper location. After messing around with it, I was able to get it to line up perfectly. Looks like I learned something new!



me too. I've never had to do that before.
you can also turn the SNAP settings off.


----------



## JimiRules

blues_n_cues said:


> me too. I've never had to do that before.
> you can also turn the SNAP settings off.



It took me a while to get it lined up perfect as the increments are so small. I think it ended up being like 40ms off.

I'll have to experiment with turning off the SNAP settings as well. 

What version are you running? I saw where I can upgrade from version 6 to 7 for $29. I was wondering if there was a great deal of improvement between the two.


----------



## blues_n_cues

JimiRules said:


> It took me a while to get it lined up perfect as the increments are so small. I think it ended up being like 40ms off.
> 
> I'll have to experiment with turning off the SNAP settings as well.
> 
> What version are you running? I saw where I can upgrade from version 6 to 7 for $29. I was wondering if there was a great deal of improvement between the two.



I'm on version 7 now (started w/ Beta testing it).
it's worth it.
2 of my favorite new features-
a fix from previous versions-it now remembers you USER made FX presets & chains.

the Step Sequencer- it's easier to split things like midi drums into the separate tracks & then delete the unused pieces of the kit per track instead of having all these full duplicate kits & having to reduce the velocities to 1.


----------



## JimiRules

blues_n_cues said:


> I'm on version 7 now (started w/ Beta testing it).
> it's worth it.
> 2 of my favorite new features-
> a fix from previous versions-it now remembers you USER made FX presets & chains.
> 
> the Step Sequencer- it's easier to split things like midi drums into the separate tracks & then delete the unused pieces of the kit per track instead of having all these full duplicate kits & having to reduce the velocities to 1.



Nice, I think I will have to do the upgrade then.


----------



## Bflat5

When you guys record how do you go about it? Record each part at once or break it down to sections?


----------



## Australian

In linear fashion usually. I like to keep the same tone and playing characteristics throughout each track.


----------



## Dmann

Bflat5 said:


> When you guys record how do you go about it? Record each part at once or break it down to sections?



I prefer to track the whole song in one take, 5 to 10 times over, then use the best parts of those to make a single track. IME isolated multitracking in sections kills the feel and momentum, but it really depends on the genre And ultimately what you are going for in the end result.

I actually use a boss micro br 80 to record scratch tracks in a sectional approach, but for me it's more for fleshing out ideas than session work.


----------



## Bflat5

I've been playing with DAWs for years, but never *really* got into it until recently.

Seems I always get distracted and choke, usually at the end. I figured playing one section at a time would be easier, but my DAW makes comping, what you're talking about Dmann, very easy. I guess I'm going to give that a try.


----------



## blues_n_cues

Bflat5 said:


> When you guys record how do you go about it? Record each part at once or break it down to sections?



it just depends.
if it's something I came up with while jamming the big rig or it's a riff I've been holding on to for a while I'll hash try to it out before recording the whole thing.

sometimes I may just be tone testing or riffing in the DAW & come up w/ something so I'll mix & match and @ a later point go back & fit it all together.

sometimes I'll write something on keyboards so I lay that down first & go back & forth between keys & guitar doing the sections in turn.

but no matter how I do it it all starts w/ good coffee & the clock usually reading 3AM.


----------



## poeman33

Bflat5 said:


> When you guys record how do you go about it? Record each part at once or break it down to sections?



If I have a drum beat that fits, I usually lay that down first. Or even just a single drum. The click track never seems to fit. Then I lay a rhythm guitar track down for the whole song. From there it could be anything, depending on the song. I might do vocals first, bass, whatever...but it will be the whole song.

The only thing I do in parts in drums. I use two fingers and tap on an old zoom drum machine. I layer these down to make my drums. I usually end up removing the original drum track, and use the layered down drums. One of these days...when I am rich and have a huge room...I will get some kind of real drums and do it properly.


----------



## 12barjunkie

Bflat5 said:


> When you guys record how do you go about it? Record each part at once or break it down to sections?


 
I always lay down a basic drum track and then record rhythm guitar all the way through (Double tracked; one left and one right) I always record the solos and fills in pieces and parts, though


----------



## blues_n_cues

poeman33 said:


> The only thing I do in parts in drums. I use two fingers and tap on an old zoom drum machine. I layer these down to make my drums. I usually end up removing the original drum track, and use the layered down drums. One of these days...when I am rich and have a huge room...I will get some kind of real drums and do it properly.



I do that for parts I can't play on the "real" e-kit>DAW VST drums.
like double bass parts ('cause I don't have a double bass pedal and one wouldn't work on my kick pad anyway) or certain fills,like triplets,which I suck at.


----------



## johnfv

Bflat5 said:


> When you guys record how do you go about it? Record each part at once or break it down to sections?


Call me old school... I get some guys together in a room and record as much as possible


----------



## JimiRules

johnfv said:


> Call me old school... I get some guys together in a room and record as much as possible



That's how I like to do it too. When I first started recording I tried getting the drums first and then building the track around it with overdubs. Then one day we tried recording everything live and the recording had a lot more mojo with everybody feeding off of each other. Now all I overdub is leads and other fills. Sometimes we will get rid of the original vocal track if the singer isn't happy with it and he will overdub another one. Then sometimes when a song has both clean and dirty guitar tones I will play the entire song clean with the band and then overdub the distorted parts.


----------



## johnfv

JimiRules said:


> ...a lot more mojo with everybody feeding off of each other...


 Exactly. Obviously if I'm recording song demos alone it's a different story but if I am recording something with multiple players, I want to get as much as possible live. Much more energy that way...


----------



## johnfv

*Some guys in a garage*

This is an original project we are working on, I intend to replace the scratch vocal and acoustic guitar eventually. All live garage recording with the exception of the guitar solo section. Trying to get a decent take I ultimately kept 4 guitar solo takes... oopsie. Gotta love technology 
http://johnviehweg.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/GoodDaySoloMessTweak.mp3


----------



## blues_n_cues

ooh,this is nice.
modular rack for e-kits. bust out the NeverDull.lol
Gibraltar E-Rack | Musician's Friend


----------



## Nudge68

Just got and loaded Cubase Pro 8. Having started on VST last century and "graduated" to LE5 quite a few years back, I'm completely confused 

.... sometimes less is more


----------



## johnfv

*5 guys in a garage*

Another attempt at live rock and roll last night:
http://www.marshallforum.com/cellar/79499-floydian-slip.html#post1304697


----------



## Midnight Blues

Thanks for the Thread Blues and thanks to all of you that have contributed! Some great info here.

I'm about to embark on my first attempt at doing some recording, but to say that I'm a novice would be a gross understatement. What I have available to me at this point (feel free to start laughing now) is a "Blue Yeti" USB Mic that I just bought (should be here today in fact), my Mac and/or my wife's MacBook Pro and of course, GarageBand. I know, not the best and not much to work with, but...

My plan is to start-out small and work my way up as I get more experience/comfortable. What I'd like to do is somehow play over some of my favorite music in my iTunes Library and as I become more proficient at recording, maybe do some of my own stuff. Is there a way to do that and if so, is there a way that I can cut-out the guitar parts in the music and just record what I'm playing?

Thanks in advance for your advice!


----------



## blues_n_cues

Midnight Blues said:


> Is there a way to do that and if so, is there a way that I can cut-out the guitar parts in the music and just record what I'm playing?
> 
> Thanks in advance for your advice!



import a song (either WAV or mp3) into Garageband & add an EQ in a *"V"* shape. that should take most of the guitars out of it.

you can also go here-
Free Guitar Backing Tracks @ GuitarBackingTrack.com


----------



## Midnight Blues

blues_n_cues said:


> import a song (either WAV or mp3) into Garageband & add an EQ in a *"V"* shape. that should take most of the guitars out of it.
> 
> you can also go here-
> Free Guitar Backing Tracks @ GuitarBackingTrack.com



Thanks bnc, you da man!!!!!

One other question: I shouldn't need anything else for the time being, i.e. all I need to do is plug the Mic into either my Mac or my wife's MacBook, set-up the Mic in front of my amp, get GarageBand set-up and go right?


----------



## blues_n_cues

Midnight Blues said:


> Thanks bnc, you da man!!!!!
> 
> One other question: I shouldn't need anything else for the time being, i.e. all I need to do is plug the Mic into either my Mac or my wife's MacBook, set-up the Mic in front of my amp, get GarageBand set-up and go right?



maybe....there's always something to figure out(once you get the mic) drivers,etc.

@ some point you'll need an audio interface.
Audio Interfaces | Musician's Friend

why,you ask?

simple.you can use regular mics,run guitar/bass/etc. direct.
better playback/recording/monitoring than the computer's native soundcard,and most importantly zero or low latency.

some terms you will need to learn-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latency_(audio)

sample rate-
Sample Rates - Audacity Wiki

bit depth-
Audio bit depth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Midnight Blues

Thanks Blues!!!!!

So with the audio interface I'd be using the amps/effects that the software provides then right?


----------



## Midnight Blues

Oh and that'll also eliminate the need for a Mic correct?


----------



## bulldozer1984

Midnight Blues said:


> Thanks for the Thread Blues and thanks to all of you that have contributed! Some great info here.
> 
> I'm about to embark on my first attempt at doing some recording, but to say that I'm a novice would be a gross understatement. What I have available to me at this point (feel free to start laughing now) is a "Blue Yeti" USB Mic that I just bought (should be here today in fact), my Mac and/or my wife's MacBook Pro and of course, GarageBand. I know, not the best and not much to work with, but...
> 
> My plan is to start-out small and work my way up as I get more experience/comfortable. What I'd like to do is somehow play over some of my favorite music in my iTunes Library and as I become more proficient at recording, maybe do some of my own stuff. Is there a way to do that and if so, is there a way that I can cut-out the guitar parts in the music and just record what I'm playing?
> 
> Thanks in advance for your advice!



There is a way of removing the guitar if it has been panned, but it is a fair bit of work. If I were you, import the song into your DAW, then pan that hard left and pan your performance hard right. Or vice versa. It may be a good thing.


----------



## bulldozer1984

Midnight Blues said:


> Oh and that'll also eliminate the need for a Mic correct?



Well, if you have a good amp and are getting good tones, I would stick with mic'ing it up. But, having an interface allows you flexibility. You can plug mics in or just plug your guitar lead straight in and use an amp sim. Don't expect it to sound as good as the real thing though. I have Amplitube and it is ok but not as good as mic'ing up my amp because it does sound digital.


----------



## Midnight Blues

bulldozer1984 said:


> There is a way of removing the guitar if it has been panned, but it is a fair bit of work. If I were you, import the song into your DAW, then pan that hard left and pan your performance hard right. Or vice versa. It may be a good thing.





bulldozer1984 said:


> Well, if you have a good amp and are getting good tones, I would stick with mic'ing it up. But, having an interface allows you flexibility. You can plug mics in or just plug your guitar lead straight in and use an amp sim. Don't expect it to sound as good as the real thing though. I have Amplitube and it is ok but not as good as mic'ing up my amp because it does sound digital.



Thanks bd!

Stupid question, but what's DAW?

I haven't played around with GarageBand at all, so I don't know what its capabilities are? Can you pan left/right with it?

So the interface will allow me to use multiple mics then? So I can set one close to my cab, then another further back in the room, etc.?


----------



## blues_n_cues

Midnight Blues said:


> Thanks bd!
> 
> Stupid question, but what's DAW?
> Digital Audio Workstation,aka recording software
> I haven't played around with GarageBand at all, so I don't know what its capabilities are? Can you pan left/right with it?
> yes
> So the interface will allow me to use multiple mics then? So I can set one close to my cab, then another further back in the room, etc.?
> 
> that depends on how many inputs your interface has but yes,with a 2 input A.I. you can do that.



as far as DAW (recording software) also check out Reaper,Audacity,& Mixcraft.
Audacity is free & Mixcraft is about the easiest & fastest to get started on but a lot of people use Reaper too. 
I have & prefer Mixcraft.it has more FX,loops,sounds,& virtual instruments than the others and is a better bang for the buck IMO.

Audacity: Free Audio Editor and Recorder

REAPER | Audio Production Without Limits

Mixcraft 7 - Recording Software | Pro Studio | Acoustica


----------



## Midnight Blues

Very cool blues_n_cues, THANKS!!!!!

I'm sure I'll have more questions once I get going, so hopefully you won't mind?


----------



## JimiRules

Midnight Blues said:


> Thanks for the Thread Blues and thanks to all of you that have contributed! Some great info here.



Yes this is a great thread. I've not only picked up a lot of great info here, but Blues has helped me out a great deal on some of my questions via PM. Thanks alot!


----------



## bulldozer1984

Just picked up a new interface today for tracking drums. So far, so good.


----------



## Nudge68

I looked at that same unit but settled on the desktop 18i8. i wanted just 4 decent mic pres.


----------



## bulldozer1984

Nudge68 said:


> I looked at that same unit but settled on the desktop 18i8. i wanted just 4 decent mic pres.



How is it working for you Nudge ? Yeh about 6 months ago I was looking at the 18i8 but ended up with a Lexicon IO42. Which is really nice. 

But, as we are not satisfied with the E Drum route, we have decided to track the real kit in the studio and be done with it. Hence the 18i20.


----------



## Nudge68

Mate, I'm in London visiting the kids. Back to KL tomorrow so will give it a whirl next weekend. 

I've just loaded Cubase 8 so loading the drivers etc then getting a signal my challenge me. I'll let you know


----------



## bulldozer1984

Now I have a piece of rack gear, I want more. I started bidding on a tube channel strip, but thankfully there is another guy out there who is also willing to overpay for it. And luckily for me, he doesn't have any self control 

My money stays in my wallet, this time round.


----------



## blues_n_cues

I need a bigger interface & I'm debating this new one I just need more room first since most of my studio is "convertible".
Product: US-16x08 | TASCAM


----------



## johnfv

I like the Focusrite stuff. I finally replaced my old Emu interface on my home computer and got the Scarlett 18i8 (don't need many inputs at home but can always expand via ADAT/lightpipe connection if needed). We've had great results with the Saffire (firewire) stuff in our practice room rig (after getting past some initial driver issues). The Scarlett is working well for me so far. 

Blues, as I've mentioned before my old TASCAM interface is great. I only replaced it because we wanted more tracks (and setup the 24 track Saffire rig). I keep the TASCAM in a rack in my amp room now, I don't use it all that often - just hook it up to my laptop if I want to record something there.


----------



## bulldozer1984

blues_n_cues said:


> I need a bigger interface & I'm debating this new one I just need more room first since most of my studio is "convertible".
> Product: US-16x08 | TASCAM



If that had 2 headphone outs, it would have been mine..


----------



## Dogs of Doom

I have the Scarlett 18i20. It works good, only thing I don't like is that when using stuff like media player, it resets it to 44/16 & when you try & change it back to 96/24 it gets fickle...

Tascam struck out w/ me. Gibson should get out of the interface business & concentrate on signatures, zero fret & robo tuners...


----------



## bulldozer1984

Dogs of Doom said:


> I have the Scarlett 18i20. It works good, only thing I don't like is that when using stuff like media player, it resets it to 44/16 & when you try & change it back to 96/24 it gets fickle...
> 
> Tascam struck out w/ me. Gibson should get out of the interface business & concentrate on signatures, zero fret & robo tuners...



What I noticed with the Scarlett, is that on my Laptop it doesn't like any higher than 48khz or I get crackling and popping no matter what buffer settings I use. On my PC I was running at 88.2 and having no troubles. Considering that only golden ears can tell the difference between 44.1 and 88.2/96, I am not going to worry too much and just use at 44.1. It is annoying that I don't have the option though. 

Considering that I am only doing standard definition audio that gets dithered down to 44.1 anyway I don't think it really matters too much what you do in between.

EDIT:- I am still getting issues at 44.1 and so here I go with optimising the laptop .


----------



## blues_n_cues

bulldozer1984 said:


> If that had 2 headphone outs, it would have been mine..



I have a 4 out headphone amp so it's not a big issue w/ me. 
a Mackie Big Knob is also on my list.


----------



## blues_n_cues

bulldozer1984 said:


> What I noticed with the Scarlett, is that on my Laptop it doesn't like any higher than 48khz or I get crackling and popping no matter what buffer settings I use. On my PC I was running at 88.2 and having no troubles. Considering that only golden ears can tell the difference between 44.1 and 88.2/96, I am not going to worry too much and just use at 44.1. It is annoying that I don't have the option though.
> 
> Considering that I am only doing standard definition audio that gets dithered down to 44.1 anyway I don't think it really matters too much what you do in between.
> 
> EDIT:- I am still getting issues at 44.1 and so here I go with optimising the laptop .



move up to a tower.

I rarely go past 48,000 since most VST & VSTI's don't work above 48k anyway.


----------



## Crunchifyable

Do Marshalls require a different recording technique than other amps? 

My Marshalls (MA50H and Class 5) tend to sound worse when I record them than what I'm hearing from the cab. It's like they NEED EQ unless they are high volume recordings.

My other amps (Bugeras mostly) aren't really the same. I basically stick a sm57 on a 4x12 and what I hear sounds decent and I don't have to add EQ.

When I record something on my MA, my first impression is "ugh this sounds nothing like what I was hearing in the room," no matter what I do.

The class 5 is more workable than the MA50h. I'm wondering if its just me hearing it off axis, or if there is something to miking a modernish marshall thats different from say a peavey 5150. Or maybe its just the 57 doesn't work for amps with a tone of presence?

After like 4 years of hating the MA, I think I finally found good settings.


----------



## bulldozer1984

blues_n_cues said:


> move up to a tower.
> 
> I rarely go past 48,000 since most VST & VSTI's don't work above 48k anyway.



I do have a tower and it was working fine on that, but my mobile rig (laptop) was the issue. I just spent some time "optimising" it and got it working great with about 7 seconds round trip latency. Im happy with it for the moment but will wait to pass judgement tomorrow when im tracking drums at our rehearsal studio


----------



## johnfv

Crunchifyable said:


> ...sound worse when I record them than what I'm hearing from the cab...


And there in a nutshell you have summarized the challenge that recording engineers have faced since Thomas Edison started the ball rolling. 

I know you were asking a specific question about your Marshalls vs. other amps. In my experience Marshalls are usually _relatively_ easy to record because they sound good. If the source you are trying to record sounds good in the first place, life is good. Still, there are many variables. For example, very small differences in mic placement can make a big difference. Maybe you just happened to pick the sweet spot one time and not another?

One thing to keep in mind, what translates to a good recorded tone may NOT be what you expect - particularly in the context of a mix. A guitar track that has too much low end is one classic example, it seems satisfying as you play alone but ends up being muddy in a band mix context. Sometimes an amp that sounds brash/harsh in the room ends being the one that has the right amount of "cut" to sit well in the mix. It's like putting a puzzle together, finding what fits without stepping on the other parts. I hope that helps-


----------



## Crunchifyable

johnfv said:


> And there in a nutshell you have summarized the challenge that recording engineers have faced since Thomas Edison started the ball rolling.
> 
> I know you were asking a specific question about your Marshalls vs. other amps. In my experience Marshalls are usually _relatively_ easy to record because they sound good. If the source you are trying to record sounds good in the first place, life is good. Still, there are many variables. For example, very small differences in mic placement can make a big difference. Maybe you just happened to pick the sweet spot one time and not another?
> 
> One thing to keep in mind, what translates to a good recorded tone may NOT be what you expect - particularly in the context of a mix. A guitar track that has too much low end is one classic example, it seems satisfying as you play alone but ends up being muddy in a band mix context. Sometimes an amp that sounds brash/harsh in the room ends being the one that has the right amount of "cut" to sit well in the mix. It's like putting a puzzle together, finding what fits without stepping on the other parts. I hope that helps-



Thanks. I think with the class 5 it's easier because all I need to do is really boost some presence and cut the low and it sounds more like a generic Marshall and mixes in fine. With the MA, I struggle to make it fit into say a scorpions backing track mix, which tells me its not recorded right at the source. 

I think with the MA the distortion itself has never been "right" at the source unless its dialed in perfectly, so maybe I lose it as soon as its recorded. It's one of those amps where there's a very narrow band between "too much gain...sounds terribly garbled" and "too little sustain...sounds like AC/DC playing with a bad patch cable."


----------



## Australian

I'm in the market for something like this PreSonus | Monitor Station V2
but in a rack version. must be this quality or better. But not interested in the Presonus Central Station Plus .Any suggestions?:


----------



## 12barjunkie

Crunchifyable said:


> ...sounds like AC/DC playing with a bad patch cable."


----------



## bulldozer1984

Australian said:


> I'm in the market for something like this PreSonus | Monitor Station V2
> but in a rack version. must be this quality or better. But not interested in the Presonus Central Station Plus .Any suggestions?:



The Central Station is a good bit of kit and gets good feedback. But if you're not into it...

The Dangerous D-Box - Dangerous Products - Dangerous Music


----------



## Australian

bulldozer1984 said:


> The Central Station is a good bit of kit and gets good feedback. But if you're not into it...
> 
> The Dangerous D-Box - Dangerous Products - Dangerous Music





It looks good. I'm going to Soundcorp this week. I'll have a chat to d' guy about it.


----------



## 12barjunkie

I've been recording a lot lately with my new Vibro Champ; I've been bitten with the small amp sickness! I know most of you guys know how to get great recordings from small amps, but it's been a real revelation to me. It seems so much easier for me to get huge sounds from small amps than it is to get them from my DSL 100 half stack, even when I crank it to get to the "sweet spot". 

I guess maybe a lot of it has to do with room acoustics; you don't need to worry about it near as much when recording a small amp as you do with a cranked 100 watter (Duh...no s**t, right?) Anyway, I'm still learning and still having fun.


What are your small amps of choice to record with?


----------



## blues_n_cues

12barjunkie said:


> I guess maybe a lot of it has to do with room acoustics; you don't need to worry about it near as much when recording a small amp as you do with a cranked 100 watter (Duh...no s**t, right?) Anyway, I'm still learning and still having fun.
> that depends on the mic type & location.close mic'd w/ a unidirectional takes the room out of the equation for the most part.
> 
> What are your small amps of choice to record with?



anything that says Fender & is covered in tweed.
old Silvertones
Randall RG 80
Marshall Lead 12 for 80's type rythms.

this was a pretty wild "small" stereo setup even thought the end result was 300 watts.


----------



## 12barjunkie

I almost snagged one of those Marshall lead 12's once. They must be pretty good if you've got one, no?


----------



## blues_n_cues

12barjunkie said:


> I almost snagged one of those Marshall lead 12's once. They must be pretty good if you've got one, no?



I found one years ago @ a church yard sale for $5. yes,you read that right-five dollars. ended up selling it for a c-note a bit later.
I'd love to have a white Lead 12 full stack now even if just for fun & a conversation piece.


----------



## Coronado

Glad to see this thread is still going strong! I have a question to those who are gifted enough to be able to sing, and who record vocals:

I have recorded about 5 songs over the last year or so, and I think I'm ready to try and record vocals on a couple of them. Can you give me a little info on what works best for you? I have a SM57, but I believe I probably will want to get a vocals microphone as well, correct? What mic would you recommend? Any tips for recording vocals, like where you like to record (which type of room works best for you), and do you use any kind of room insulation? 

I've read a few articles, but would really like to hear what works best for you guys. Thanks so much!!


----------



## poeman33

Coronado said:


> Glad to see this thread is still going strong! I have a question to those who are gifted enough to be able to sing, and who record vocals:
> 
> I have recorded about 5 songs over the last year or so, and I think I'm ready to try and record vocals on a couple of them. Can you give me a little info on what works best for you? I have a SM57, but I believe I probably will want to get a vocals microphone as well, correct? What mic would you recommend? Any tips for recording vocals, like where you like to record (which type of room works best for you), and do you use any kind of room insulation?
> 
> I've read a few articles, but would really like to hear what works best for you guys. Thanks so much!!



A large diaphram is the best for vocals. You can get relatively inexpensive ones...like what I use the AT2035...or spend a fortune. Practice with it to learn some mike techniques.

In a pinch, you can always use an SM58 too. They record just fine, just not quite the crispness and depth of a large diaphragm.

Try to isolate the mike if you can. A little foam behind and around it can do wonders. I bought myself a small surround screen, and I think there is a post in here from Blues about one he made.


----------



## johnfv

A good LDC (large diaphragm condenser) is the standard but a 57 works quite well for vocals, some of us consider it a favorite for live use.


----------



## bulldozer1984

Coronado said:


> Glad to see this thread is still going strong! I have a question to those who are gifted enough to be able to sing, and who record vocals:
> 
> I have recorded about 5 songs over the last year or so, and I think I'm ready to try and record vocals on a couple of them. Can you give me a little info on what works best for you? I have a SM57, but I believe I probably will want to get a vocals microphone as well, correct? What mic would you recommend? Any tips for recording vocals, like where you like to record (which type of room works best for you), and do you use any kind of room insulation?
> 
> I've read a few articles, but would really like to hear what works best for you guys. Thanks so much!!



A nice large condenser mic like the RODE NT1 is a good starting point. And as Poeman said, if you don't have a nice "dead" sounding space then you should get yourself an isolation screen. I have one and it works wonders.

And watch this.. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpEi_B12DtY[/ame]


----------



## blues_n_cues

it depends but I like & use a Behringer T-47 tube mic,MXL 990 condenser,& an AKG D8000s (Shure SM58 clone).

as Poe said I built my own mic shield/GOBO out of a couple paint roller screens,hurricane stud strap,zippie tie mounting brackets,& other stuff-
not as "professional" looking as those store bought units but for less than about $10.00 in materials & 30 minutes of effort it does just as good a job.






Elmer's foam/neoprene project board for backing & auralex acoustic foam glued to that.


----------



## 12barjunkie

I've had one of these [ame="http://www.amazon.com/MXL-V69M-EDT-MXL-V69M-EDT-Condenser-Microphone/dp/B0006I92NW"]http://www.amazon.com/MXL-V69M-EDT-MXL-V69M-EDT-Condenser-Microphone/dp/B0006I92NW[/ame] for ten years now. I only use it occasionally, but I really like it. Most of the time I just use an SM-58.

It's funny because when I bought this mic ten years ago, I also bought a Zoom MRS 802 and thought "this is all I will ever need for recording"


----------



## Dogs of Doom

for a DIY p-popper...

Buy an embroidery hoop & a pair of women's hosiery. Pretty self explanitory...


----------



## blues_n_cues

12barjunkie said:


> I've had one of these http://www.amazon.com/MXL-V69M-EDT-MXL-V69M-EDT-Condenser-Microphone/dp/B0006I92NW for ten years now. I only use it occasionally, but I really like it. Most of the time I just use an SM-58.
> 
> It's funny because when I bought this mic ten years ago, I also bought a Zoom MRS 802 and thought "this is all I will ever need for recording"



I've been looking @ an MXL V67 for modding.
Cheap Microphone + $100 Part = Amazing Microphone - Jordan's Chopped Thoughts


----------



## blues_n_cues

another inexpensive studio gear route (for drum tracking)-
cheap $10 earbuds worn under ear protection muffs for drum tracking.
about $25 ttl. invested and a lot morecomfortable than the $100 Vic Firth phones.


----------



## 12barjunkie

Hmmm, never occurred to me to mod a mic. Lots of good reading at Microphone Database | Audio Recording News | RecordingHacks Thanks, Blues


----------



## blues_n_cues

12barjunkie said:


> Hmmm, never occurred to me to mod a mic. Lots of good reading at Microphone Database | Audio Recording News | RecordingHacks Thanks, Blues



yeah,that's a great site & here's a couple more-
Mics & Modding Tutorial - MusicTech | MusicTech

a U87 is on my list too-
Building a Vintage-style U87 Mic Is Easier and Cheaper Than You Think &ndash; DIYRE


----------



## 12barjunkie

blues_n_cues said:


> yeah,that's a great site & here's a couple more-
> Mics & Modding Tutorial - MusicTech | MusicTech
> 
> a U87 is on my list too-
> Building a Vintage-style U87 Mic Is Easier and Cheaper Than You Think &ndash; DIYRE




I just read that article at MusicTech. They had a safety warning about high voltages. Does that mean there are caps inside that need to be discharged just like in an amp?


----------



## blues_n_cues

12barjunkie said:


> I just read that article at MusicTech. They had a safety warning about high voltages. Does that mean there are caps inside that need to be discharged just like in an amp?



I believe that's more for working on tube mics-be sure to disconnect the power supply unit first.

"As always, we need to issue a health and safety warning before you read on. Valve microphones operate at potentially lethal voltages. Ensure that the microphone is switched off and disconnected from the power supply before carrying out any work."

another interesting read,if a bit technical-
NerdKits - Why do you pass a MIC Vout through a capacitor? (Basic Electronics)


----------



## Nudge68

I'm with 'doze - a Rode NT1 

Damn thing captures _everything_.


----------



## 12barjunkie

blues_n_cues said:


> I believe that's more for working on tube mics-be sure to disconnect the power supply unit first.



Yeah, I got that part. What I'm asking is are there caps inside of a tube mic that still retain high voltage even though they're unplugged?


----------



## blues_n_cues

12barjunkie said:


> Yeah, I got that part. What I'm asking is are there caps inside of a tube mic that still retain high voltage even though they're unplugged?



no,not from what I've experienced or we wouldn't be having this conversation (poof).lol
here's some more reading-
Getting Started With Capacitor Mics

The amount of charge that can be stored is proportional (amongst other things) to the distance between the two plates. Consequently, most capacitor microphones work by detecting the minuscule changes in stored charge which occur when the diaphragm moves relative to the backplate in response to passing sound waves. The stored charge can be generated in a couple of different ways: either by using a relatively high DC polarisation voltage, usually derived from phantom power; or by using a permanently charged film fixed to the backplate of the mic (the so called 'back electret' design).

In both cases, it is vital that the stored charge doesn't leak away, so the audio output circuitry has to present an extremely high impedance. Thus all capacitor microphones incorporate a suitable impedance-matching preamplifier very close to the capsule, based either on solid-state FETs or valves. The aim is to present an extremely high input impedance to the capsule, but a very low output impedance to the mic cable.

Regardless of the way in which the stored charge is generated, both kinds of capacitor microphone obviously require power for the internal impedance-matching preamp. This is usually obtained from phantom power again, but some mics can be operated from an internal battery instead, and valve microphones are usually powered from a dedicated mains PSU.


----------



## 12barjunkie

Cool, thanks man


----------



## Hahahahahahaha

Nudge68 said:


> I'm with 'doze - a Rode NT1
> 
> Damn thing captures _everything_.



So you record things but never share??


----------



## Coronado

Damn - *You guys are the best!! *Thanks so much for all the great feedback and suggestions on the mics and recording options for vocals! I need all the help I can get, and now I have a fighting chance.


----------



## blues_n_cues

if you dare,,,
for your 8" or larger studio monitors or speakers-
Raxxess RSG8 Round Speaker Grill (Flat Black) RSG-8 B&H Photo

Raxxess Misc PA Accessories | Sweetwater.com

Raxxess CKW | Sweetwater.com


----------



## johnfv

Yours truly working in a friend's nicely equipped home studio around 1995. If you look closely you can see multiple TC, Lexicon and Eventide processors... Genelec monitors... TubeTech preamps...


----------



## blues_n_cues

johnfv said:


> Yours truly working in a friend's nicely equipped home studio around 1995. If you look closely you can see multiple TC, Lexicon and Eventide processors... Genelec monitors... TubeTech preamps...



I hope he had a separate AC unit for that room.


----------



## johnfv

blues_n_cues said:


> I hope he had a separate AC unit for that room.



Indeed. The house was central air but he had a big wall unit in that room as well


----------



## Coronado

Hey guys, I love this thread, and glad to see it’s still alive and well! I apologize if this was already discussed, but how many guitar tracks do you create when recording a song? I have been reading a bit on it, and I have come to the realization that I am probably doing too many. I think I am getting that "chorus" sound they refer to, when too many tracks kind of muck up the sound? I'll even admit to a few times while recording, I know something wasn’t quite perfect and I thought to myself, eh, it'll wash out with more guitars (lazy, I know...). 

I have recorded 10 songs over the last year or so. Some are pretty okay, and some I look back now and realize they sound like garbage (the recording is okay, but it’s the song itself that is boring). One of my favorites I did about 5 months ago, and I have 5 or 6 rhythm tracks, and it does sound a bit too much. It’s full - perhaps a bit too full? 

How many tracks do you guys create? How do you arrange your guitar? (different amps, different guitars, different gain levels, different mics, etc...)

Thanks SO much!!


----------



## johnfv

In many cases "less=more"  

It's easy to fall into the trap of laying on more tracks simply because you can, particularly now when your tracks are often pretty much unlimited. 
There is a certain immediacy or "realness" to a single guitar or vocal track. While doubling can make things more full, it also causes it to lose some impact. These days I use it sparingly, more like a special effect - only on certain parts at certain times. Even if there are different parts, tones, etc. things can become cluttered fast. I like to leave some space in the arrangement and mix. YMMV...


----------



## poeman33

A common thing I do is record a rhythm guitar track and use two mikes. A SM57 and an AT2035 large diaphragm mike. Eack mike will have it's own channel. I play with those two tracks to try to get the most natural and fullest sound. Sometimes it a hard right, hard left pan. Sometimes a mix. And sometimes it ends up just being one track with the other deleted. It really depends how it sounds with the rest. The lead is never more than two tracks, and that would be because of the two mikes. Like John said, it loses some impact with too many tracks...and this keeps it right up front.

One thing I have done a few times is use one guitar for a rhythm track. Then play the exact same thing with another guitar. I will pan those hard right and hard left. That gives it a very full sound. It really sounds cool if you are really playing them almost identically too. Just enough variance to fill it out, but not enough so that it's blantantly two different guitars.


----------



## 12barjunkie

I double track every rhythm guitar part. Panned hard left and hard right. Sometimes I blend two mics for each side cuz my 4x12 cab has different speakers in it


----------



## Coronado

Thanks so much for the feedback! Man, I sure have spent a LOT of time adding guitar tracks, just to realize that I've just made my rythm guitar tracks sound like soup. Now that I've gone back and listened to my 10 recordings, youre right, there is no tone, just lots of cluttered crushing guitars with no definition. 

Something tells me I could learn more in one hour working with you guys than I have over the last 2 years of just trial and error! 

Also, that AT2035 sounds like a great recommendation! I have been wanting to get another mic (currently only using the SM57), so I think I'll head down to GC and see if I can pick one up. I know the SM57 is a dynamic mic where I just read that the AT2035 is a condensor mic. Can I run them both into my Audiobox USB inputs at the same time? 


Thank you!


----------



## poeman33

Coronado said:


> Thanks so much for the feedback! Man, I sure have spent a LOT of time adding guitar tracks, just to realize that I've just made my rythm guitar tracks sound like soup. Now that I've gone back and listened to my 10 recordings, youre right, there is no tone, just lots of cluttered crushing guitars with no definition.
> 
> Something tells me I could learn more in one hour working with you guys than I have over the last 2 years of just trial and error!
> 
> Also, that AT2035 sounds like a great recommendation! I have been wanting to get another mic (currently only using the SM57), so I think I'll head down to GC and see if I can pick one up. I know the SM57 is a dynamic mic where I just read that the AT2035 is a condensor mic. Can I run them both into my Audiobox USB inputs at the same time?
> 
> 
> Thank you!



You need phantom power to the XLR connection to run the AT2035. It looks like your audio box has it, so yeah...no problem running both at the same time.


----------



## blues_n_cues

Coronado said:


> Hey guys, I love this thread, and glad to see it’s still alive and well! I apologize if this was already discussed, but how many guitar tracks do you create when recording a song? I have been reading a bit on it, and I have come to the realization that I am probably doing too many. I think I am getting that "chorus" sound they refer to, when too many tracks kind of muck up the sound? I'll even admit to a few times while recording, I know something wasn’t quite perfect and I thought to myself, eh, it'll wash out with more guitars (lazy, I know...).
> 
> I have recorded 10 songs over the last year or so. Some are pretty okay, and some I look back now and realize they sound like garbage (the recording is okay, but it’s the song itself that is boring). One of my favorites I did about 5 months ago, and I have 5 or 6 rhythm tracks, and it does sound a bit too much. It’s full - perhaps a bit too full?
> 
> How many tracks do you guys create? How do you arrange your guitar? (different amps, different guitars, different gain levels, different mics, etc...)
> 
> Thanks SO much!!



tracks- it depends on what the song calls for. 
the way I usually do it is to lay a rythm then manually double it. if done right (played tight enough) there's won't be that "chorus" sound which is what we call "phase". you can flip or reverse the phase w/ a click of the mouse these days. some songs,the in-phase may actually make it better- think Randy Rhoads in places like the end of Flying High Again.

then depending on the song I'll lay a clean track down the middle but pull it way back to where you can't really hear it but if just fills out the frequency spectrum.

more tricks-use different guitars for doubling parts,clean tracks,etc.etc. or even play the same guitar for the same parts but play the same chords on a different part of the neck or even partial chords for a different tonality.

split the chords- play the lower 3 strings of a chord w/ one guitar then play the top 3 strings separately or w/ a different guitar. 

and there's a million other tricks too.


----------



## krudler

"Mud" is a product of too much buildup in part of the frequency spectrum (particularly 400-1k, which just happens to be where alot of the guitar likes to live). 10 different guitar tracks could easily cause this (and is probably overkill in any event), but it could happen with much fewer if you are not using EQ to notch stuff out so it doesn't accumulate to an unpleasant amount. On guitar tracks you can generally also roll off anything under 100-120hz, there is nothing useful down there that is going to help the overall mix, just rumble and muck.
If you're looking for a 'wide' sound, another useful thing to try would be a mid/side (M/S) recording technique. It will require you to have two mics, one with a fig-8 polar pattern, but it can be a very cool and useful option.


----------



## Ghostman

I got a new toy yesterday in the mail. I ordered up as part of an Accommodation program I get with Shure. Saved about $8. Went through 100 hoops to get it. Definitely not worth the price cut, after all was said and done.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

yeah, how much did you pay overall?

Back in the '80s/'90s, I tried out a bunch of mic's & the Shure weren't really what I would choose in most situations, when buying. I would go hook up a dozen mic's to the PA in the store & break it down to the best few & hone down. I'd usually end up w/ an AT mic that cost ½ what the Shure cost & it had better response, frequency range & the gain was either same or better.

Back then, EV came out w/ the N-Dym series & they kicked ass all over everything else for vocal mic's. I haven't kept up w/ them, but, I'm sure (not Shure) that they still make a great mic. You should be taking advantage of those...


----------



## 12barjunkie

I just pulled the trigger on a new preamp. It's a FMR RNP 8380. I've been using a couple Presonus Tube pre's since day one, and I picked up a Eureka last summer. The difference between the Tube Pre and the Eureka seemed pretty substantial. The RNP gets a ton of praise and it seems like a good "bang for the buck" 

I never record more than two tracks at a time, but I double track each rhythm part twice (one left, one right). Each take though, I have a close mic each on one Vintage 30 and one G12T75. 

Anybody here tried the RNP stuff?


----------



## Micky




----------



## Ghostman

Dogs of Doom said:


> yeah, how much did you pay overall?
> 
> Back in the '80s/'90s, I tried out a bunch of mic's & the Shure weren't really what I would choose in most situations, when buying. I would go hook up a dozen mic's to the PA in the store & break it down to the best few & hone down. I'd usually end up w/ an AT mic that cost ½ what the Shure cost & it had better response, frequency range & the gain was either same or better.
> 
> Back then, EV came out w/ the N-Dym series & they kicked ass all over everything else for vocal mic's. I haven't kept up w/ them, but, I'm sure (not Shure) that they still make a great mic. You should be taking advantage of those...



overall I paid just shy of $93. I could have done the EV route for $57 plus tax/shipping so around $75. But since the Shure SM57/8 have been the reference, I figured what the hell, why not.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Which EV? They have tons of mic's at different levels...

I remember getting our singer an 727? Whatever the 1st series was in that range. It was a hot, full sounding mic. It seemed to have twice the gain of an SM58. Our only problem was when we performed, was getting sound guys to wrap their heads around turning the gain down so much, because they wouldn't believe us...

But, yeah, keep that 58 & measure your other mic's to that & you'll be quite surprised at how well many of the others compare. You could probably get that cheap EV & it will run circles around it...


----------



## blues_n_cues

MF SDOTD-Novation Launch Control XL $99.
Stupid Deal of the Day | SDOTD | Musician's Friend


----------



## Coronado

Well, it’s been about 3 years now that I've been playing around with recording (somewhat more serious year 2, and even more so this last year). The funny thing is, I feel like I only know a VERY basic understanding of this process so far. What blows my mind is the complexity of it all, yet I'm learning that more is often not always better. 10 recordings later, I find I've recorded way too many guitar tracks, too much gain, too much mixing of the tracks (_just to wind up going back to the original track before mixing_), and perhaps the most important lesson, if it sounds like **** when you record it, it’s going to sound like **** when you mix it too. For those of you who know this stuff well, I humbly tip my hat to you!! I find myself reading, watching, and reviewing anything I can get my hands on about recording. Better mics, noise absorbing pads, building the perfect sound room, mic placement, mixing the sound... And then there is the technology of the software itself. Better, faster processing computers. There is no perfect sequence, which I guess is a good thing as it creates so many different sounds and recordings. What is my point to all of this? I have no idea. But if I were to guess what I'm trying to say, it would be that it’s okay if something comes out like crap. I think it’s really a process of learning as you go, learning from your mistakes, and making a better recording on your next song. 

So I listen to one of my most recent recordings where I think it sounds okay. And then I listen to something that was made back in the day - AC/DC, Back in Black, for example. DAMN if that doesn’t sound so frickin' clean! It seems so basic, but everything stands out *SO* nicely. The drums seem so loud, yet they are mixed in so well (WAY louder than I could ever get without clipping all to hell). I imagine that having millions in recording equipment doesn’t hurt. 

Still SO much for me to learn, but it can be so rewarding. It blows my mind to think that we can create something that people can listen to. Some people paint, some sculpt, some take amazing pictures. I'm hoping to create some songs that I can one day drive down the road in my car and listen to, just as I listen to any other of my favorite bands. My goal is to one day post something here that I think is good enough to share. I really dig this thread. This is exactly where I one day plan to post my first song. And I look forward to feedback from my friends in this forum who have helped me get to this point! 

Thanks to all of you for all of your advice and recommendations! And keep those clips coming! You encourage me to keep working at it to hopefully one day make something that is good enough to post!


----------



## johnfv

Coronado said:


> ...and perhaps the most important lesson, if it sounds like **** when you record it, it’s going to sound like **** when you mix it too...


You gotta get it right at the source... turd polish does not exist


----------



## bulldozer1984

The things that will make your mix sound like a pro release. 

Good source recording 
Correct gain staging
Correct balance of the elements in the mix 
Proper use of EQ
Proper use of Compression
Proper use of FX
Placement of elements in the sound stage 

Those things are much more important than which type of $3k compressor is used. If you can learn those things, you will become a pro. It just takes time and alot of practice.


----------



## blues_n_cues

johnfv said:


> You gotta get it right at the source... turd polish does not exist





oh but it does,Kanye's 21 Grammys proves it. (sarc)


----------



## Dogs of Doom

well... one thing to consider is sometimes a not so perfect track can be used for great effect.

Listen to Revelation Mother Earth by Blizzard of Ozz. Max used a combination of good tracks to bounce off of bad/rough tracks to do the "call & response" type effect.

(good take)
I had a vision, I saw the world burn

(bad take)
& the sea that turned red

(good take)
The sun had fallen, the final curtain

(bad take)
In the land of the dead

you get the idea. It was simply brilliant. Having a perfect take on both lines throughout that section would not have had the same dramatic effect...

Another recording that I think of is Black Sabbath Eternal Idol. Terrible recording/production, but musically great. Now... maybe the performances weren't spot on, so they used bad sound to cover it up? IDK... 

I'd rather have something not so perfect, than to have a technically perfect, sterile representation of the music. 

re: doubling, quad'ing & more. There's only so much you can do w/ a single voice. Whether it be vocal, or an instrument, if you are using the identical tone, you max out at 2-4 repros. After that, it becomes less tight & more cluttered. If you change voices, you can do 2-4 ea/, say you have 4 vocalists, you can double them all & have 8-16 voices, but doing 16 single voice tracks won't get you any bigger sound after the 1st few. 

Same w/ an instrument. If you use the same guitar, same amp, same settings, you will just clutter it up. Also, less distortion on the amp will allow for more guitars in the mix, rather than a distorted sound. High gain doesn't leave much room for more redundancy...


----------



## minerman

bulldozer1984 said:


> The things that will make your mix sound like a pro release.
> 
> Good source recording
> Correct gain staging
> Correct balance of the elements in the mix
> Proper use of EQ
> Proper use of Compression
> Proper use of FX
> Placement of elements in the sound stage
> 
> Those things are much more important than which type of $3k compressor is used. If you can learn those things, you will become a pro. It just takes time and alot of practice.







Dogs of Doom said:


> well... one thing to consider is sometimes a not so perfect track can be used for great effect.
> 
> Listen to Revelation Mother Earth by Blizzard of Ozz. Max used a combination of good tracks to bounce off of bad/rough tracks to do the "call & response" type effect.
> 
> (good take)
> I had a vision, I saw the world burn
> 
> (bad take)
> & the sea that turned red
> 
> (good take)
> The sun had fallen, the final curtain
> 
> (bad take)
> In the land of the dead
> 
> you get the idea. It was simply brilliant. Having a perfect take on both lines throughout that section would not have had the same dramatic effect...
> 
> Another recording that I think of is Black Sabbath Eternal Idol. Terrible recording/production, but musically great. Now... maybe the performances weren't spot on, so they used bad sound to cover it up? IDK...
> 
> I'd rather have something not so perfect, than to have a technically perfect, sterile representation of the music.
> 
> re: doubling, quad'ing & more. There's only so much you can do w/ a single voice. Whether it be vocal, or an instrument, if you are using the identical tone, you max out at 2-4 repros. After that, it becomes less tight & more cluttered. If you change voices, you can do 2-4 ea/, say you have 4 vocalists, you can double them all & have 8-16 voices, but doing 16 single voice tracks won't get you any bigger sound after the 1st few.
> 
> Same w/ an instrument. If you use the same guitar, same amp, same settings, you will just clutter it up. Also, less distortion on the amp will allow for more guitars in the mix, rather than a distorted sound. High gain doesn't leave much room for more redundancy...



Great advice here guys....

*Coronado*: Dude, you just need to roll up your sleeves, & dive into it man. Learn all you can about everything. Some of it is deep/complicated, & some of it's not...There's a lot of great resources these days (tutorials, video how-to's, etc), so you're not totally in the dark on this stuff....Plus, there's a lot of help right here in this forum too...


----------



## 4Horseman

How often do you guys back up your projects? I had a 20+ track project going, imported my drummer's tracks, quantized them and now I can't open the project. I get a fatal error message, and my DAW shuts down.  I can get in my other projects fine. I'm going to try a system restore, but you can bet your sweet bippy I'll be backing up more frequently.


----------



## blues_n_cues

4Horseman said:


> How often do you guys back up your projects? I had a 20+ track project going, imported my drummer's tracks, quantized them and now I can't open the project. I get a fatal error message, and my DAW shuts down.  I can get in my other projects fine. I'm going to try a system restore, but you can bet your sweet bippy I'll be backing up more frequently.



I back up as I go. 
have you tried just reinstalling the DAW? 
are there previous backup versions you can open *BEFORE* he quantized? there should be depending on how you *SAVE* your workflow in the DAW's Preferences.


----------



## Risamaru

my DAW (FL Studio 12) Lets you save as zipped loop files which is basically a zip with the project file and any recorded audio. What's cool is I can do a project at home and go to my singers house and load it there and its exactly how it was when I saved, as long as they have the same plugins. I'm sure most DAW's do that.

also the AUTOSAVE feature is a life saver.

Always have an external back up an possibly back it up on cdrs as well.


----------



## Risamaru

www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=x9jlNRlRkwM


----------



## 4Horseman

blues_n_cues said:


> I back up as I go.
> have you tried just reinstalling the DAW?
> are there previous backup versions you can open *BEFORE* he quantized? there should be depending on how you *SAVE* your workflow in the DAW's Preferences.


No I haven't tried reinstall, the other projects are fine so I figured it was related to just one project. I'm using sonar 8.5, was trying audiosnap and quantized the drums to an original track. I use a laptop and I noticed the fan not working properly and things were getting hot, don't know if it's related...

I'll have to see what my settings are for backup, but I'll be paying more attention in the future. Luckily it's just a cover song with my old drummer for learning purpose, I think this was lesson 23 or so...


----------



## Coronado

bulldozer1984 said:


> The things that will make your mix sound like a pro release.
> 
> Good source recording
> Correct gain staging
> Correct balance of the elements in the mix
> Proper use of EQ
> Proper use of Compression
> Proper use of FX
> Placement of elements in the sound stage
> 
> Those things are much more important than which type of $3k compressor is used. If you can learn those things, you will become a pro. It just takes time and alot of practice.


 

GREAT advice! Thank you SO much for the recommendations!

*Good source recording:* I finally learned that I have to get it right the first time, not just make 10 tracks and the mistakes get "lost" in the mix!

*Correct gain staging:* Still working on this one. I finally learned to use the Mix Tool to get this set up correctly. Only recently learned how to do this.

*Correct balance of the elements in the mix:* I can use more practice and help in this area. Still learning as I go.
 

*Proper use of EQ:* When I use the EQ in StudioOne, I notice that I tend 
to adjust the tone and make it too bright. I think I need to spend some time with someone to show me how to properly dial this in. 

*-Proper use of Compression:* As with the Mix Tool, I recently learned how to use the Channel Strip function to do this, but still just learning how to properly set the level.

*-Proper use of FX:* Do you apply this during the mix, or when you are recording usually? I believe I read that it’s better to record with nothing, and then add. Is that correct?

*-Placement of elements in the sound stage:* Another area I am kind of lost with. Currently I do my best to adjust panning and layering of tracks. I read that a good way to do this is to pan left, right, and center, and put the vocals dry and in the middle. I don’t have much practice with vocals, so for now, my songs are just rhythm guitars, lead, bass, and drums. 

I recently picked up the AT 2035 mic (per the advice in this thread) to add another mic for guitars. I currently have the SM57, SM58, and now the AT 2035. I also want to pick up a vocals mic, but for now will use one of the mics I have now. Any recommendations on a decent vocals mic? I watch YouTube vids on StudioOne to get a better understanding of how to better record and mix, but it’s often difficult to hear the subtle sound variations when mixing. 

Thanks again for the great advice! I wrote down your key recommendations and will keep those in mind when recording!


----------



## Coronado

minerman said:


> Great advice here guys....
> 
> *Coronado*: Dude, you just need to roll up your sleeves, & dive into it man. Learn all you can about everything. Some of it is deep/complicated, & some of it's not...There's a lot of great resources these days (tutorials, video how-to's, etc), so you're not totally in the dark on this stuff....Plus, there's a lot of help right here in this forum too...


 
You are absolutley right my friend! I've watched several clips on YouTube and watched a lot of tutuorials. Most of the great advice has actually come from the Forum! Lots of good resources. 

I really liked the advice to try different guitars/amps, and with less gain. I chopped the redundant guitar tracks and kept the couple that were the best. I then fired up the 74' MKII 1987 and recorded another track with a total different sound. I'm liking the way its turning out! Thanks again!


----------



## minerman

Coronado said:


> You are absolutley right my friend! I've watched several clips on YouTube and watched a lot of tutuorials. Most of the great advice has actually come from the Forum! Lots of good resources.
> 
> I really liked the advice to try different guitars/amps, and with less gain. I chopped the redundant guitar tracks and kept the couple that were the best. I then fired up the 74' MKII 1987 and recorded another track with a total different sound. I'm liking the way its turning out! Thanks again!



Yeah dude, learn as you go....Lots of us here have been doing the recording thing for years now (I'm going on my 6th year myself...), & it's a pretty steep learning curve at times....Just keep at it man!!!!

Here's a song I finished up for my "album" a month or so ago, but I'm still working on the rest:

*Just Gettin' By*

All this was done in my music room on the computer I'm typing on right now...


----------



## 4Horseman

Good news! I did a little reading and discovered file recovery mode (Sonar). This mode ignores some error codes and such. Hold the shift button down while opening the file. It then asks you if you want to load the plugins on each track, which I declined. File opened right up, now I just need to go back and add plugins. I also read up on backing up, won't make that mistake again!


----------



## Frodebro

minerman said:


> Yeah dude, learn as you go....Lots of us here have been doing the recording thing for years now (I'm going on my 6th year myself...), & it's a pretty steep learning curve at times....Just keep at it man!!!!



I started on a four-track cassette recorder back in the eighties, then pretty much stopped altogether when I was gigging regularly in the nineties. About nine years ago I decided to get back into it, and the move to digital workstations just about did me in. I was pretty comfortable with the overall recording and mixing process already, but learning all of the new gear was pretty intense at first. If you're new to recording AND the technology out there now, it can pucker your butt HARD because you have to learn both things as you go.


----------



## blues_n_cues

Coronado said:


> *-Proper use of FX:* Do you apply this during the mix, or when you are recording usually? I believe I read that it’s better to record with nothing, and then add. Is that correct?



it depends on what I'm doing and what FX we're talking about but w/ modern DAW & VST fx nothing is "printed" until it gets burned to CD or whatever medium you "mix down to" so you can change thing @ any time. 

I've always preferred to @ least have 'verb & delay in my monitor mix (phones) even in the old days of tape.

sometimes delay or big reverb may be part of the sound so it need to be printed as you record.

vocal compression/limiting is a must & pretty much done in-line before the audio interface,so it's effectively printed.


----------



## 12barjunkie

minerman said:


> Yeah dude, learn as you go....Lots of us here have been doing the recording thing for years now (I'm going on my 6th year myself...), & it's a pretty steep learning curve at times....Just keep at it man!!!!
> 
> Here's a song I finished up for my "album" a month or so ago, but I'm still working on the rest:
> 
> *Just Gettin' By*
> 
> All this was done in my music room on the computer I'm typing on right now...



That's sounds really good, man  Did you use the Chupacabra for the rhythm guitars?


----------



## minerman

12barjunkie said:


> That's sounds really good, man  Did you use the Chupacabra for the rhythm guitars?


Thanks dude, yeah, I used the Chupacabra for all the guitars on this song...Great amp, I love it!!!


----------



## blues_n_cues

I don't remember if I posted this before but if you are using Windows 7 after you open your DAW-
click START then in the search box-
type TASK MANAGER
select PROCESSES tab
find taskhost.exe,
RIGHT CLICK that & select END PROCESS TREE.
that will save a lot of CPU.

you must do it every session.


----------



## Ghostman

How do you guys solve Latency issues? 

I tried to track some recordings here in the hotel and it's impossible. I'm using Cubase LE 5, and I can lay down a drum track using my iPhone as a drum machine. Then when I play along with it, the latency shifts everything late so it sounds like I'm retarded. I am retarded by not that bad. 

My sound driver I'm using is the ASIO Generic Low Latency which is 40ms. That's eternity. I also have the ASIO DirectX Full Duplex Driver but that's almost 400ms latency, so completely unusable. Also listed is a Dante Virtual Card but it's not compatible for this type of system, it's for commercial sound applications.






So what's the secret here folks?


----------



## Nudge68

Download ASIO4ALL. It's free and works very well in LE5


----------



## Ghostman

Nudge68 said:


> Download ASIO4ALL. It's free and works very well in LE5



Nudge! You da MAN! That worked perfect! It gave me some more options and I was able to get the Latency down to 6ms. Which was perfect! 

I can actually lay down some tracks!!!


----------



## scat7s

don't forget to realign it after its tracked! keep it tight!


----------



## blues_n_cues

another option might be to use WAVE RT in exclusive mode (for going under 20ms) instead of ASIO if you're using Windows 7 (or up) but I'm not sure how well it works w/ Cubase.

some reading-
CUBASE 5 and Wave RT? Windows 7


----------



## LedZeppelinFan

This is how I recorded drums.

First thing? I set up a drumkit in my shop, which is a rather cavernous space that makes everything sound huge.

Second? I close mic up all the toms, bongos, bass drums, and snares. Basically, not the cymbals or cowbells or anything like that. I use a bunch of different high quality mics to do this, but always in the same way. I EQ to taste. No studio compression. 

Third? I set up overhead mics. I use Behringer B1's these days. They're so much better than anything else Behringer makes. They're cheap, and REALLY great sounding. EQ'd and compressed. 

Fourth? I set up three B1's around the kit, at equal distance. This captures the big sound of the whole room. No EQ, No compression.

I set levels to taste, and I let whatever drummer happens to be playing finish his pizza, and then do his thing.

Altogether, it's a really open, huge drum sound, but at the same time, it's sort of focused. This seems like it might be self contradictory, but thanks to all the different mic's, it truly is both. I use quite a bit of mics, which takes up some room on my console, but it's worth it! It goes straight from my console to my tape deck, where it is recorded.


----------



## blues_n_cues

no 2nd mic or compression on the snare?


----------



## LedZeppelinFan

blues_n_cues said:


> no 2nd mic or compression on the snare?



No... I figured a second mic was a given.

I don't like to use compression on the snare. For many years, I would record with a close friend of mine who was a fantastic drummer, who LOVED HIS SNARE. He also loved pizza, which explains my little line in there about pizza. It also explains the heart attack that killed him!

When I first recorded him, I had the compression on the snare at a fairly typical level. He didn't like it. He told me to turn it down, and eventually off. After hearing it in the mix, I agreed with him. He truly was a fantastic drummer. He way he used his snare was fantastic. I've never heard anything quite like it. It was dynamic. It was just massive. He came from a long line of Jazz drummers. A compressor, which is usually great on snare, just seemed to drastically reduce the level of brilliance you got from his playing. It took away what made him special. Also, the lack of compression on the snare helped a ton to not make his drums sound small. No matter what the levels were set at, the drums always sounded big. Open. 

That being said, when I work with drummers who aren't at all good with a snare, I compress that snare. A lot. I don't like to do it, but their suckiness forces me to. Lucky for me, I seem to get a lot of talented kids in to my place wanting the analog experience. It'd surprised you! In my location, which is somewhere in America somewhere (maybe) there's a surprising amount of young, skilled drummers. 


So short answer, yes to the second mic, usually no to the compression. I was talking of my ideal drum sound, not the one I'm forced to use at times.


----------



## blues_n_cues

LedZeppelinFan said:


> I seem to get a lot of talented kids in to my place wanting the analog experience. It'd surprised you!
> not really,analog & tape are coming back in a big way,especially w/ the blues/rock crowd.
> 
> So short answer, yes to the second mic, usually no to the compression. I was talking of my ideal drum sound, not the one I'm forced to use at times.



yeah,genre & the room has a lot to do w/ it. for rock & metal gotta have the compression. I still like to use some to take the "ring" out of the strainer or side mic depending on the snare drum build type & size itself. 

it's always nice to have a rack full of good snares in the studio in various sizes & choices of steel & nylon strainers,but of course w/ todays VSTI's & samples that's a whole lot of extra room saved.lol


----------



## LedZeppelinFan

blues_n_cues said:


> yeah,genre & the room has a lot to do w/ it. for rock & metal gotta have the compression. I still like to use some to take the "ring" out of the strainer or side mic depending on the snare drum build type & size itself.
> 
> it's always nice to have a rack full of good snares in the studio in various sizes & choices of steel & nylon strainers,but of course w/ todays VSTI's & samples that's a whole lot of extra room saved.lol



Oh, I hear you man! The drummer pal of mine was a Jazz drummer who loved to play on blues and rock stuff... Who'd of thunk... I suppose Ginger Baker did that, too! 

I think I've acquired around 20 or so snares over the years... I'm always changing them out! I'm not much on drums, but I must admit, I'm a drum tone snob! It's loads of fun working with drums! 

I bought an electric drum kit right when they first came out, and sold it for a Ludwig kit the day after... It's just better to have the real thing!


----------



## blues_n_cues

LedZeppelinFan said:


> I bought an electric drum kit right when they first came out, and sold it for a Ludwig kit the day after... It's just better to have the real thing!



when I get a dedicated room again I'll buy another "real" kit but w/ triggers too. my e-kit works just fine for my situation & all I have to do is click the mouse a couple times to dial it in for whatever genre/sounds I want. not to mention noone hears it @ 3 am.

one thing about e-kits,they'll make you hit more accurately for sure,considering most pads are only 7.5" in diameter.lol


----------



## LedZeppelinFan

blues_n_cues said:


> when I get a dedicated room again I'll buy another "real" kit but w/ triggers too. my e-kit works just fine for my situation & all I have to do is click the mouse a couple times to dial it in for whatever genre/sounds I want. not to mention noone hears it @ 3 am.
> 
> one thing about e-kits,they'll make you hit more accurately for sure,considering most pads are only 7.5" in diameter.lol



I can see how that would be useful! I live on 4 Acres, and I have a nice little shop. That's where I like to use my kit. The only person who can hear that at 3 AM are the rats... At one point, I found one in one of my bass drums! I can't for the life of me figure out how it got in! There weren't any holes in the drum! 

So much for those tests disproving spontaneous generation! Although, no one's ever disproved spontaneous combustion!

R.I.P. Peter James Bond.


----------



## Coronado

StudioOne came out with its 3rd version/upgrade. I'm a fan of StudioOne, but I have to admit, I'm a little frustrating to have to fork out hundreds of dollars each time they fix something or add a new feature/upgrade. I don’t know how it is with other tools, but StudioOne has Artist, Producer, and Professional versions (each level up is a couple hundred bucks). And, they had version one, then two (you pay for the upgrade) and now again they have come out with version 3 (another $250 bucks). In total now, I have shelled out something like $800 bucks just for the software upgrades. I guess I can understand the cost for the different versions, but it seems to me like the upgrades (version 1, 2 and now 3) is a bit much. I would think that they wouldn’t charge too much for an upgrade from version 2 to 3, but its $250. How bout' a break for loyal customers who already have paid for Artist and Producer versions? Are other tools the same way?


----------



## blues_n_cues

Coronado said:


> StudioOne came out with its 3rd version/upgrade. I'm a fan of StudioOne, but I have to admit, I'm a little frustrating to have to fork out hundreds of dollars each time they fix something or add a new feature/upgrade. I don’t know how it is with other tools, but StudioOne has Artist, Producer, and Professional versions (each level up is a couple hundred bucks). And, they had version one, then two (you pay for the upgrade) and now again they have come out with version 3 (another $250 bucks). In total now, I have shelled out something like $800 bucks just for the software upgrades. I guess I can understand the cost for the different versions, but it seems to me like the upgrades (version 1, 2 and now 3) is a bit much. I would think that they wouldn’t charge too much for an upgrade from version 2 to 3, but its $250. How bout' a break for loyal customers who already have paid for Artist and Producer versions? Are other tools the same way?



that's how they all get you.
I use Mixcraft & when a new version comes out (about every 2 years) it only costs previous version users around $20-$30. they do new "builds" & add certain features or do bug fixes constantly. those update builds are free.


----------



## blues_n_cues

a pretty good vid on guitar recording & production technique (before the Kemper part).

Michael's credits list-
Michael Wagener's Discography

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32kBaZFPzHs[/ame]


----------



## Derek S

New monitors in the house, yay (finally)! I've been using some old (ish) M-Audio AV30's for mixing/playback, etc, and thought they were "good enough" over the years. My my local GC was blasting out a stack of new JBL LSR305's for a great price and I nabbed a pair. Wow! They smoke what I had! What a difference. Especially for listening/tracking guitar (cab is mic'd up in another room). Best of all, my cheapness paid off - seems like I went with a solid model by chance lol, a quick search or two at gslutz and the gpage pulls up nothing but high marks for these, hell, they may be the standard sub $500 winner!


----------



## blues_n_cues

wow,$300 per pair? pretty good deal.
JBL LSR305 5" Powered Studio Monitor | Musician's Friend


----------



## Derek S

Thanks...it was less than that over the weekend. I paid $129 each!! They had a nice mountain of them piled up in the pro audio room. It's prolly a hill now lol.


----------



## blues_n_cues

FREE DAW-
Presonus Studio One 3 Prime

https://shop.presonus.com/products/studio-one-prods/Studio-One-3-Prime

I haven't tried it because I have a 32 bit system.


----------



## SmokeyDopey

I got myself a nice pair of headphones: Beyerdynamic DT 770 Pro. Love 'em! 
Having good monitoring is pretty fundamental when recording.


----------



## blues_n_cues

Mixcraft now does FLAC.

it's still in BETA testing but-

"1) Some pretty cool new audio improvements for Windows 10, and
2) Support for loading, playing, and recording directly to FLAC files!"


"There's a lot of other stuff, too, as you'll see in the list below. What are FLAC files? FLAC is a lossless audio compression format. FLAC files are about 50% smaller than WAV files, but the audio data is completely unchanged, meaning you never lose any quality whatsoever when using FLAC files. If you record to FLAC files instead of WAV files, your recordings will take up half as much space on your hard drive, but they'll still contain all of the quality. That's what makes it "lossless" -- there's no loss to your data* (like a ZIP file)."

just a few other new features & updates-

Here's a list of new features:

* Windows 10 support for new low-latency Core Audio shared mode with compatible drivers.
* Windows 10 support for multiple sample rates and bit depths with Core Audio.
* Redesigned Core Audio preferences to be more useful, clearer.
* Windows 10 support for highest-priority mixing for excellent stability.
* We now support FLAC, including loading, mixing down to, and recording directly to FLAC!
* Added support for many new MIDI controllers, including [insert new controllers here]
* New unique file naming technology, every new recording file has a unique ID.
* Added a single Undo event for everything that occurs during a recording session.


----------



## Photojazz

Unfortunately, I bought Studio One 2 months before they updated it. Outside the free update window of course by a month. I was a little PISSED nobody would even answer my emails about making an exception and upgrading me. My strategy at this point is, I'll update when I absolutely have too, until then, I will use what I bought. 

I use a 32 track Tascam digital recorder, and then import into my daw. I do not want to be burdened with a computer for all my recording frankly. I like the independent recorder.

I use various mics. I think I am leaning more and more toward Shure 57s and 1 58 for singing. I don't have the 58 yet, I only have 1 57. I have some Blue mics, like them, but very low volume mics unfortunately. I'd like more dynamic range with them.

I have noticed if Studio One V2 is open when my laptop goes to sleep, it won't wake back up. No issue on Windows 7 on my desktop with that, that I know of. I run W7 on my laptop too.

nice sound track with the Stratisfied thing blues n cues but it was lagging pretty bad, so I bailed before it finished. Is that typical with soundcloud?

I have thought about a more public place for my music, I do. I do a little bit of everything.

I have only played guitar for 1 year though.

My latest effort: "It Don't Come Easy" cover, done my way...

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8xjyhAJUz9ZSk9xZFp4Q2FoRzQ/view?usp=sharing


----------



## blues_n_cues

Photojazz said:


> I use various mics. I think I am leaning more and more toward Shure 57s and 1 58 for singing. I don't have the 58 yet, I only have 1 57. I have some Blue mics, like them, but very low volume mics unfortunately. I'd like more dynamic range with them.
> 
> have you tried any MXL or other mics. I prefer condensers for a lot of things myself but it also depends on your recording environment & outside noise.
> 
> nice sound track with the Stratisfied thing blues n cues but it was lagging pretty bad, so I bailed before it finished. Is that typical with soundcloud?



it could be if they're updating or doing maintenance. 
I know it's not the song itself. 

another thing about SoundCloud (to me) is no matter my mixes the hi-hats always come out sounding "washy" & kinda swirly but it's only on SC.


----------



## blues_n_cues

some vst/sampled drum tips-
if you are able to do separate drum tracks (loops won't work)

1) do the bass drum from both sides-
you can have your batter side w/ more mids,lower Hi's,& compression but do another track from the "front". leave the lows but cut everything else,little or no compression and add reverb to room requirement/taste.

2) the snare-
do the same except this time for the "snare bottom" track you may want to use an eq & adjust between the 200k & 2k region and use compression for excessive ring.

3) use different snare & bass drums from different "sets" for these tracks & see what happens. level to taste.

4) add a boundary or room mic- this can be tricky because using 2 identical sets can give a phased sound. add reverb,"V" the eq a bit & pull this track way back in the mix to simulate distance. you can also use a stereo widener.


----------



## scat7s

this guys videos are excellent. 

https://www.youtube.com/user/mixbustv


----------



## Coronado

Man, had the place to myself all day yesterday and it was great! Spent the whole day recording and editing tracks. I have 10 tracks right now that I think are fairly decent (tossed out around 10 others that were just crap). Is there anything better (for recording nuts like us) than at the end of the day having a completed song that you can say, "damn, that doesn't sound half bad!"... Perhaps one of these days I'll get the balls and actually post one of them. 

Question: Do you guys get any hum in your recording? I have a 74' MKII 1987 that I love, but it seems to have a little hum that I just cant seem to get rid of and it shows up a tad in my recordings. How do you guys eliminate the hum in your recordings? I've seem some clips where I think I can EQ it out at the end of the song, but my problem is quite spaces. Hoping I will one day be talented enough with this recording thing to be able to pull the hum from the sound.

Thanks!


----------



## scat7s

I edit the hum out in blank spots, and deal with it otherwise. 

in my strange little room 90% of my hum depends on my position...in other words if I face my desk straight on, the hum can be bad (im talking with a guitar or bass) but if I spin my body approx. 45 degrees left or 45 degrees right, the hum is minimal. its a very narrow sweet spot actually.


----------



## blues_n_cues

Coronado said:


> Question: Do you guys get any hum in your recording? I have a 74' MKII 1987 that I love, but it seems to have a little hum that I just cant seem to get rid of and it shows up a tad in my recordings. How do you guys eliminate the hum in your recordings?




edit the clips &/or automate the volume in blank/quiet spots.
if it's too obvious I may use an amp sim instead.
when all else fails,I add keyboard parts.


----------



## Coronado

scat7s said:


> I edit the hum out in blank spots, and deal with it otherwise.
> 
> in my strange little room 90% of my hum depends on my position...in other words if I face my desk straight on, the hum can be bad (im talking with a guitar or bass) but if I spin my body approx. 45 degrees left or 45 degrees right, the hum is minimal. its a very narrow sweet spot actually.




You know, that's a really good idea. I recently learned how to "strip silence" my tracks. It a bit of work, but if I create a bus for the guitar tracks, it should cut back on the amount of work. Unfortunately, songs with little (or no) gain, the sound of the hum is more noticeable. Its not too bad, but just something I wish I could remove completely. 

Thanks for the advice!


----------



## Coronado

blues_n_cues said:


> edit the clips &/or automate the volume in blank/quiet spots.
> if it's too obvious I may use an amp sim instead.
> when all else fails,I add keyboard parts.



There's an idea! I just need to buy a keyboard now.  For the short-term, I'll try removing the silent parts. I will also add a different amp in the recordings that I have already created (my DSL, JCM and Fender are quiet) and see if I can somewhat drown out the hum. Ampmadscientist had a solution that will hopefully fix that hum in my amp. It has all new tubes, which I had hoped would clean up the problem. 

Thanks for the help!


----------



## johnfv

blues_n_cues said:


> edit the clips &/or automate the volume in blank/quiet spots...


I don't always take the time do it but well placed mutes/deletes and fades can clean up a mix a lot. I've put a fair amount of effort into muting tracks on this mix. It's a live garage recording: lots of bleed, hum, snares buzzing, etc. but when muted down to a few key tracks it cleans up pretty well. 
http://www.marshallforum.com/cellar/84352-pink-floyd-medley-v2.html#post1409467

http://johnviehweg.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/FreudFoo7.71.mp3


----------



## blues_n_cues

johnfv said:


> I don't always take the time do it but well placed mutes/deletes and fades can clean up a mix a lot. I've put a fair amount of effort into muting tracks on this mix. It's a live garage recording: lots of bleed, hum, snares buzzing, etc. but when muted down to a few key tracks it cleans up pretty well.
> http://www.marshallforum.com/cellar/84352-pink-floyd-medley-v2.html#post1409467
> 
> http://johnviehweg.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/FreudFoo7.71.mp3



yeah,I forgot to mention sometimes it's a good thing to have a little ambient hum,white noise,or "filler" way back in the mix or if you're doing "vintage" style music. sometimes a mix can be *too* clean & it comes off as sterile. that was never a problem in the analog tape days.


----------



## Coronado

To attenuate, or not to attenuate...

Last weekend I was doing some recording with my 74' 1987. The house was empty, and I have somewhat soundproofed my recording room (the best I can without making it look too much like a psych ward). Cranked up the amp to push the tubes and get some good sound. It was loud. Real loud. I play in the other room, but at some point I'm thinking perhaps its time for an attenuator. 

I have read a bunch on attenuators lately, and what someone may have recommended three years ago might not be the same thing they would recommend today. For example, the Rivera RockCrusher. I have read a lot of reviews on this, and from what I have heard from videos (for the best that a video can produce), it seems to do a pretty good job. Easy to use, and the sound seems good. I have read that a couple artists used the RCrusher in recent recordings and really liked the tone.

There have been several conversations and threads on attenuators, but I thought I would ask again, which one you would recommend. 

Thanks for the help!


----------



## Frodebro

Coronado said:


> To attenuate, or not to attenuate...
> 
> Last weekend I was doing some recording with my 74' 1987. The house was empty, and I have somewhat soundproofed my recording room (the best I can without making it look too much like a psych ward). Cranked up the amp to push the tubes and get some good sound. It was loud. Real loud. I play in the other room, but at some point I'm thinking perhaps its time for an attenuator.
> 
> I have read a bunch on attenuators lately, and what someone may have recommended three years ago might not be the same thing they would recommend today. For example, the Rivera RockCrusher. I have read a lot of reviews on this, and from what I have heard from videos (for the best that a video can produce), it seems to do a pretty good job. Easy to use, and the sound seems good. I have read that a couple artists used the RCrusher in recent recordings and really liked the tone.
> 
> There have been several conversations and threads on attenuators, but I thought I would ask again, which one you would recommend.
> 
> Thanks for the help!



I've got the Rockcrusher recording, and have been really happy with it. It was purchased partially as an attenuator and partially as a direct recording device.


----------



## Coronado

Frodebro said:


> I've got the Rockcrusher recording, and have been really happy with it. It was purchased partially as an attenuator and partially as a direct recording device.



Very cool! So with the recording RCrusher, it comes with an EQ and a cabinet emulator - so you can bypass your cabinet altogether, correct?


----------



## Frodebro

Coronado said:


> Very cool! So with the recording RCrusher, it comes with an EQ and a cabinet emulator - so you can bypass your cabinet altogether, correct?



Yes. The RC can also function as a load box, so you just plug your speaker out into it and run a mic cable to your interface/mixer. Totally silent direct recording with any amp you own.


----------



## scat7s

ok kids...what do ya'll do when you run out of CPU while working on a project? 

im working on a thing that's got literally 86 channels of information...tracks, busses, plug ins, etc etc....

im max'd out. so, naturally, I have to bounce some things down and reduce the channel/track quantities and the plug in count. but, the trouble is...things sound different when you bounce....you lose quality and the audio "space" seems to shrink/change?

I figure I don't really have much choice but to deal with it, but im wondering how you guys deal with a project that maxes out your computers resources when you still have more work to do. perhaps there is an alternative to bouncing? 

thanks.


----------



## blues_n_cues

scat7s said:


> ok kids...what do ya'll do when you run out of CPU while working on a project?
> 
> im working on a thing that's got literally 86 channels of information...tracks, busses, plug ins, etc etc....
> 
> im max'd out. so, naturally, I have to bounce some things down and reduce the channel/track quantities and the plug in count. but, the trouble is...things sound different when you bounce....you lose quality and the audio "space" seems to shrink/change?
> 
> I figure I don't really have much choice but to deal with it, but im wondering how you guys deal with a project that maxes out your computers resources when you still have more work to do. perhaps there is an alternative to bouncing?
> 
> thanks.


funny you should mention high CPU. I'm working on rescuing some right now. 

1) you could run Malwarebytes to see if anything has changed on your comp recently.

2) revert Windows appearance to basic

3) this has helped me a lot w/ unneeded/wanted Services-
http://www.blackviper.com/service-c...dows-7-service-pack-1-service-configurations/


----------



## Coronado

I was just watching a Studio One training video and they recommended using an external drive to maintain and run your recordings. Wondering if you moved your project over to an external drive with more room, perhaps that would help? I just purchased a LaCie Big Disk Extreme 1 TB drive to run my Studio One. Trying to get into the habit of backing up my work on my external drive and my PC. I have been recording songs for a few years now, and have 12 songs that I am happy with, and tons of junk songs and parts of songs that I pull ideas from. I would be pretty bummed if my PC s**t the bed and I lost all that work. I use a dedicated laptop for my recordings, and I've noticed over the last couple years that its starting to show signs of wear and age. For one of my songs, I had to shut a couple programs running in the background as my CPU was maxed out.


----------



## scat7s

blues_n_cues said:


> funny you should mention high CPU. I'm working on rescuing some right now.
> 
> 1) you could run Malwarebytes to see if anything has changed on your comp recently.
> 
> 2) revert Windows appearance to basic
> 
> 3) this has helped me a lot w/ unneeded/wanted Services-
> http://www.blackviper.com/service-c...dows-7-service-pack-1-service-configurations/



yeah thanks, I should have mentioned that ive already optimized the comp for best performance. this machine is 100% offline, so all unused/unnecessary services have been disabled etc...my computer is very clean...its never been online. and the only info I have stored is audio projects and programs. every time I check, it says a defrag is not necessary...so its still clean in that regard. 

I guess at this point im looking at workflow efficiency...busses, routing, vst's etc....any tricks you guys may have for maximizing resources from a workflow perspective.

its probably just a matter of nickel and diming whatever little bits I can squeeze out of it from here...every little bit counts when your bumping up against the ceiling.

are there any DAW settings that can lower overhead? buffers and things? or is that just for live tracking? I guess I should also add, I have no trouble recording tracks...this is purely a mixdown issue once things start piling up.


----------



## Coronado

scat7s said:


> yeah thanks, I should have mentioned that ive already optimized the comp for best performance. this machine is 100% offline, so all unused/unnecessary services have been disabled etc...
> 
> I guess at this point im looking at workflow efficiency...busses, routing, vst's etc....any tricks you guys may have for maximizing resources from a workflow perspective.
> 
> its probably just a matter of nickel and diming whatever little bits I can squeeze out of it from here...every little bit counts when your bumping up against the ceiling.
> 
> are there any DAW settings that can lower overhead? buffers and things? or is that just for live tracking? I guess I should also add, I have no trouble recording tracks...this is purely a mixdown issue once things start piling up.




I have one song that is large enough that I had to adjust my sample rate and depth. Wonder if that would help?


----------



## scat7s

Coronado said:


> I have one song that is large enough that I had to adjust my sample rate and depth. Wonder if that would help?



mmmm, yeah it probably would, but I kinda don't want to do that...but I suppose if i just lowered it for "working" and then bumped it back up when its time to render a mix? 



that's probably a pretty good suggestion Coronado...what else ya got?


----------



## blues_n_cues

scat7s said:


> yeah thanks, I should have mentioned that ive already optimized the comp for best performance. this machine is 100% offline, so all unused/unnecessary services have been disabled etc...my computer is very clean...its never been online. and the only info I have stored is audio projects and programs. every time I check, it says a defrag is not necessary...so its still clean in that regard.
> 
> I guess at this point im looking at workflow efficiency...busses, routing, vst's etc....any tricks you guys may have for maximizing resources from a workflow perspective.
> 
> its probably just a matter of nickel and diming whatever little bits I can squeeze out of it from here...every little bit counts when your bumping up against the ceiling.
> 
> are there any DAW settings that can lower overhead? buffers and things? or is that just for live tracking? I guess I should also add, I have no trouble recording tracks...this is purely a mixdown issue once things start piling up.



even if the machine is a fresh OS install that has never been online or had add-ons there are still background Processes & Services that are non-essential bloat. that's just the way Windows is. you don't delete anything you just shut down Processes & Services or change the way they run or start. unless you did a CUSTOM INSTALL you have a lot of unneccessary carp running in the background taking up CPU.

the DAW itself could be using up a lot of CPU.for instance,everyone knows Pro Tools is a major resource hog so since you are in the mixing stage maybe use another DAW as a REWIRE application.

another thing is- which plugins are you using and how many instances of them are you using ? some of those can be resource hogs. maybe you can consolidate certain cracks or use only one instance of the VST in a mix buss or use a different VST that does the same thing but uses less CPU.

example-I love the Pultec Tube EQ but it can chew up some resources big time.


----------



## Australian

Scat have you tried to increase the latency within your DAW. This will ease up on your CPU a lot. 
Its a solution if you are in the final mix stage as you don't need low latency unless you are recording.


----------



## Frodebro

Coronado said:


> I was just watching a Studio One training video and they recommended using an external drive to maintain and run your recordings. Wondering if you moved your project over to an external drive with more room, perhaps that would help? I just purchased a LaCie Big Disk Extreme 1 TB drive to run my Studio One. Trying to get into the habit of backing up my work on my external drive and my PC. I have been recording songs for a few years now, and have 12 songs that I am happy with, and tons of junk songs and parts of songs that I pull ideas from. I would be pretty bummed if my PC s**t the bed and I lost all that work. I use a dedicated laptop for my recordings, and I've noticed over the last couple years that its starting to show signs of wear and age. For one of my songs, I had to shut a couple programs running in the background as my CPU was maxed out.



Tracking to an external drive will give you much better system performance, particularly when running higher track counts. When everything is all on a single drive, that drive has to read the OS, the DAW, AND all of your tracks at the same time. I'm currently running four drives-one for the OS/DAW, two for sample libraries, and one for tracking to. This spreads the load really well, and even with higher track counts (50+) and lots of software instruments and plug-ins, my total CPU usage rarely exceeds 20%.


----------



## scat7s

Australian said:


> Scat have you tried to increase the latency within your DAW. This will ease up on your CPU a lot.
> Its a solution if you are in the final mix stage as you don't need low latency unless you are recording.



i will try that too...thanks!


----------



## scat7s

blues_n_cues said:


> even if the machine is a fresh OS install that has never been online or had add-ons there are still background Processes & Services that are non-essential bloat. that's just the way Windows is. you don't delete anything you just shut down Processes & Services or change the way they run or start. unless you did a CUSTOM INSTALL you have a lot of unneccessary carp running in the background taking up CPU.
> 
> the DAW itself could be using up a lot of CPU.for instance,everyone knows Pro Tools is a major resource hog so since you are in the mixing stage maybe use another DAW as a REWIRE application.
> 
> another thing is- which plugins are you using and how many instances of them are you using ? some of those can be resource hogs. maybe you can consolidate certain cracks or use only one instance of the VST in a mix buss or use a different VST that does the same thing but uses less CPU.
> 
> example-I love the Pultec Tube EQ but it can chew up some resources big time.



yep i understand that, ive already been thru the viper page and disabled all unused/unecessary services. im running in "bare bones" mode. 

im using reaper, which is supposed to be a pretty efficient DAW. 

and finally, yes ive also noticed "commercial" plug ins generally use more CPU, and particularly when you start using multiples things can get out of hand. i typically stick to reaper plug ins (at least for initial mixdown setups) as most of them are quite efficient and get the job done with lower overhead than 3rd party alternatives.


----------



## scat7s

Frodebro said:


> Tracking to an external drive will give you much better system performance, particularly when running higher track counts. When everything is all on a single drive, that drive has to read the OS, the DAW, AND all of your tracks at the same time. I'm currently running four drives-one for the OS/DAW, two for sample libraries, and one for tracking to. This spreads the load really well, and even with higher track counts (50+) and lots of software instruments and plug-ins, my total CPU usage rarely exceeds 20%.



hmm. i keep reading things like this...

i have a partition on a mechanical drive that stores my OS and some programs. 

on the same drive, different partition i store some projects and files, and then i have a SS drive which stores my reaper program, and another separate batch of project files. 

does a partition act like a separate drive the way you describe or no? probably not right?


----------



## Frodebro

scat7s said:


> hmm. i keep reading things like this...
> 
> i have a partition on a mechanical drive that stores my OS and some programs.
> 
> on the same drive, different partition i store some projects and files, and then i have a SS drive which stores my reaper program, and another separate batch of project files.
> 
> does a partition act like a separate drive the way you describe or no? probably not right?



No, a partitioned drive is still only one drive. Think of it like a phonograph record-each drive only has one "needle" to jump around and gather all of the information it needs. The more it has to gather, the longer it takes.


----------



## scat7s

thanks


----------



## blues_n_cues

Frodebro said:


> No, a partitioned drive is still only one drive. Think of it like a phonograph record-each drive only has one "needle" to jump around and gather all of the information it needs. The more it has to gather, the longer it takes.


----------



## blues_n_cues

scat7s said:


> ok kids...what do ya'll do when you run out of CPU while working on a project?
> 
> im working on a thing that's got literally 86 channels of information...tracks, busses, plug ins, etc etc....
> 
> thanks.



WTF are you recording anyway,the Boston Philharmonic??? 

..or just getting crazy w/ mics...?


----------



## scat7s

blues_n_cues said:


> WTF are you recording anyway,the Boston Philharmonic???
> 
> ..or just getting crazy w/ mics...?



ha...live drum kit, kick sub, a few copies of the snare for different eq settings, samples on the snare, kick and floor tom, mic pairs on all guitars (electric and acoustic), lead and rhythm, pair of bass tracks, piano bed, and then all of the bussing, sidechains and whatnot....

86 and I don't have CPU room for the vocals yet! this is my dilemma...trying to incorporate the vocal tracks without having to bounce stuff down too much. Im a control freak and like to keep all of my options open as long as is possible.


----------



## Frodebro

scat7s said:


> ha...live drum kit, kick sub, a few copies of the snare for different eq settings, samples on the snare, kick and floor tom, mic pairs on all guitars (electric and acoustic), lead and rhythm, pair of bass tracks, piano bed, and then all of the bussing, sidechains and whatnot....
> 
> 86 and I don't have CPU room for the vocals yet! this is my dilemma...trying to incorporate the vocal tracks without having to bounce stuff down too much. Im a control freak and like to keep all of my options open as long as is possible.



Is it possible to bounce everything down to a stereo mix and save it as a separate project, add your vocal tracks to that mix, then import them back into the "big" project?


----------



## scat7s

Frodebro said:


> Is it possible to bounce everything down to a stereo mix and save it as a separate project, add your vocal tracks to that mix, then import them back into the "big" project?



yes, that is an option. and probably in some way shape or form what I will be forced to do.


----------



## Australian

scat7s said:


> ha...live drum kit, kick sub, a few copies of the snare for different eq settings, samples on the snare, kick and floor tom, mic pairs on all guitars (electric and acoustic), lead and rhythm, pair of bass tracks, piano bed, and then all of the bussing, sidechains and whatnot....
> 
> 86 and I don't have CPU room for the vocals yet! this is my dilemma...trying to incorporate the vocal tracks without having to bounce stuff down too much. Im a control freak and like to keep all of my options open as long as is possible.





In that case, what if you bounce all the drums and bass guit to a stereo track for the time being, and maybe even turn off a plugin or two on tracks that aren't too prominent .

Also, because you've recorded a lot of audio files, you might want to defragment the HD-to handle any sluggishness caused by non-contiguous files.

Also, deleting silences in the tracks can help.


----------



## scat7s

that's what ive done...bounced groups down to stereo tracks and started a new project to incorporate the vox.

but ive gotten myself sidetracked with the perceived loss of fidelity and "space" within my bounces...

maybe I should let that go for now and just concentrate on the vox and then decide how to bring it all together later...?

im sure I can remap some of my routing to reduce track and plug in counts on the "big" project. 

thanks for all the ideas fellas, there are a few things I can experiment with here....


----------



## Australian

scat7s said:


> that's what ive done...bounced groups down to stereo tracks and started a new project to incorporate the vox.
> 
> but ive gotten myself sidetracked with the perceived loss of fidelity and "space" within my bounces...
> 
> maybe I should let that go for now and just concentrate on the vox and then decide how to bring it all together later...?
> 
> im sure I can remap some of my routing to reduce track and plug in counts on the "big" project.
> 
> thanks for all the ideas fellas, there are a few things I can experiment with here....




Yep that sounds like a good idea. Just leave enough tracks on to keep enough vibe there to record the vocals.


----------



## blues_n_cues

scat7s said:


> that's what ive done...bounced groups down to stereo tracks and started a new project to incorporate the vox.
> 
> but ive gotten myself sidetracked with the perceived loss of fidelity and "space" within my bounces...
> 
> if you're losing that much fidelity by bouncing/mixing down to WAV files maybe up the quality/size of the WAV files or can you convert to FLAC files (see below).
> 
> maybe I should let that go for now and just concentrate on the vox and then decide how to bring it all together later...?
> 
> im sure I can remap some of my routing to reduce track and plug in counts on the "big" project.
> YEP!!!
> thanks for all the ideas fellas, there are a few things I can experiment with here....



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLAC
Digital audio compressed by FLAC's algorithm can typically be reduced to 50–60% of its original size[4] and decompress to an identical copy of the original audio data.

https://www.google.com/search?sourc...nUS614US614&q=convert+audio+WAV+to+FLAC+files


----------



## scat7s

nice blues, ill look into that. 

so, i was able to reduce my cpu (on this project) quite a bit. coronado had the most dramatic suggestion...by reducing my playback to 44100 i was able to get back about 30% of my cpu. 

i also overclocked my computer by roughly 33%. this was a modest gain...maybe 8 or 10% cpu gain max. 

finally i increased buffer size...not much noticable diff. but i also changed my vst settings, so that they are disabled when not in use...so rather than holding steady at 90% cpu thru the entire song, it fluxuates with usage as the track and plug count ebbs and flows. 

so...bottom line i have bought myself a little more headroom. thanks again for the suggestions guys.

(oh yeah, i did find one of my plug ins was acting "corrupted"...meaning it was being a hog where it normally should not be. ive had this happen with this particular plug in before...by reloading it, it comes back down to earth where it should be (1 or 2%) )


----------



## Coronado

scat7s said:


> nice blues, ill look into that.
> 
> so, i was able to reduce my cpu (on this project) quite a bit. coronado had the most dramatic suggestion...by reducing my playback to 44100 i was able to get back about 30% of my cpu.
> 
> i also overclocked my computer by roughly 33%. this was a modest gain...maybe 8 or 10% cpu gain max.
> 
> finally i increased buffer size...not much noticable diff. but i also changed my vst settings, so that they are disabled when not in use...so rather than holding steady at 90% cpu thru the entire song, it fluxuates with usage as the track and plug count ebbs and flows.
> 
> so...bottom line i have bought myself a little more headroom. thanks again for the suggestions guys.
> 
> (oh yeah, i did find one of my plug ins was acting "corrupted"...meaning it was being a hog where it normally should not be. ive had this happen with this particular plug in before...by reloading it, it comes back down to earth where it should be (1 or 2%) )



So glad that worked! 

Another dramatic improvement to my CPU was going into my Task Manager and reviewing my CPU Manager. There is a monster CPU sucker called WMPNetworksvc. It is in continuous run, and sucks as much as 30% of my CPU momentarily, just enough to cause my song to freeze and make that terrible sound. You can right click on it and "suspend" that function, and it will no longer pull your CPU strength. The best part about suspending these systems is that it will not hurt your computer, and if you are ever worried that you shut off something you may need, you can always restart and it will turn everything you suspended back on. You can always just click on it again and select "start" to turn it on as well. 

Take a look in your CPU Manager and you will see all sorts of useless crap running in the background. When I'm recording, I dump anything I can that is sucking CPU. Lots of useless junk just chunking away at my CPU.


----------



## scat7s

i already have all that sh*t turned off coronado. 

im running lean and mean. 23 processes...3 to 5% cpu at idle.


----------



## Coronado

scat7s said:


> i already have all that sh*t turned off coronado.
> 
> im running lean and mean. 23 processes...3 to 5% cpu at idle.



Oh man, now that is lean! NICE!!


----------



## Australian

Let us know how you end up handling it Scat. We've all been through that with CPU .


----------



## Coronado

I use Studio One for my recordings. I know a fraction of what this tool can really do. They started making tutorial videos to help by showing demonstrations and examples. I have read (a lot of) the owners manual, but its always nice to see how it actually works. I look forward to the day when I can really fully utilize the tools in this system. 

But then again, another part of me thinks there is something to be said for the raw element of just the basics. Ya know? Those subtle errors and mistakes. I guess its a bit of both. For example, I know Studio One can fix those early notes (when you strum that first chord and one of your guitar tracks is off a tad). I'm still at that early stage - just getting comfortable gain staging and strip silencing!


----------



## Australian

Plugins:

Have any of you guys bought any new impressive plugins?
I've been a bit of a UAD snob for the last year, but decided to see what else is going down. 

So I downloaded the Cytomic The Glue demo, and the quality is up there with UAD, and maybe even better. And with a few instances of it in my DAW the CPU didn't even budge. 
And its only $99 compared to the UAD version $249+30% if you're using the Australian dollar.


----------



## blues_n_cues

Coronado said:


> So glad that worked!
> 
> Another dramatic improvement to my CPU was going into my Task Manager and reviewing my CPU Manager. There is a monster CPU sucker called WMPNetworksvc. It is in continuous run, and sucks as much as 30% of my CPU momentarily, just enough to cause my song to freeze and make that terrible sound. You can right click on it and "suspend" that function, and it will no longer pull your CPU strength. The best part about suspending these systems is that it will not hurt your computer, and if you are ever worried that you shut off something you may need, you can always restart and it will turn everything you suspended back on. You can always just click on it again and select "start" to turn it on as well.
> 
> Take a look in your CPU Manager and you will see all sorts of useless crap running in the background. When I'm recording, I dump anything I can that is sucking CPU. Lots of useless junk just chunking away at my CPU.



yep. there are a lot of things like home networking or networking in general that you can shut down PERIOD or run in MANUAL & only start when they are needed. 

a lot of people don't konw that "networking" may mean that if you have 2 user accoutns on your comp it's sharing everything between users & taking up double the resources. it's not "networking" as in internet perse but you can shut a lot of that off too or redo it to only start if needed & not run or atart automatically.
on of the biggest is Media Center Network Sharing etc.etc.. shut that carp off NOW. it's worthless.


----------



## poeman33

Coronado said:


> I use Studio One for my recordings. I know a fraction of what this tool can really do. They started making tutorial videos to help by showing demonstrations and examples. I have read (a lot of) the owners manual, but its always nice to see how it actually works. I look forward to the day when I can really fully utilize the tools in this system.
> 
> But then again, another part of me thinks there is something to be said for the raw element of just the basics. Ya know? Those subtle errors and mistakes. I guess its a bit of both. For example, I know Studio One can fix those early notes (when you strum that first chord and one of your guitar tracks is off a tad). I'm still at that early stage - just getting comfortable gain staging and strip silencing!



I'm using Studio One now too. I found the manual lacking...even the diagrams were often out of date. But there is a wealth of videos on it. So far, everything I wanted to learn how to do, I have found a video for it. If find it very user friendly. I'm doing much more advanced stuff with it than I did with cubase. (kindergarten stuff to our more advanced users) but big steps for me.


----------



## scat7s

is it true VST3 are supposed to be more efficient on cpu useage?/ or am i making that up?

i thought i read that somewhere....


----------



## renips

Australian said:


> Plugins:
> 
> Have any of you guys bought any new impressive plugins?
> I've been a bit of a UAD snob for the last year, but decided to see what else is going down.
> 
> So I downloaded the Cytomic The Glue demo, and the quality is up there with UAD, and maybe even better. And with a few instances of it in my DAW the CPU didn't even budge.
> And its only $99 compared to the UAD version $249+30% if you're using the Australian dollar.


 
I am also a UAD user and man they are great plug ins. Have you tried the Lexicon Blackhole reverb? I have had this for a while now. I absolutely love it. I use a lot. I just got Ozone 7. I have been using Ozone for a while now and I love the Izotope stuff. UAD is giving some coupons away. I have a $25 one in my account and I will be receiving a $25 coupon for completing a survey.


----------



## Australian

renips said:


> I am also a UAD user and man they are great plug ins. Have you tried the Lexicon Blackhole reverb? I have had this for a while now. I absolutely love it. I use a lot. I just got Ozone 7. I have been using Ozone for a while now and I love the Izotope stuff. UAD is giving some coupons away. I have a $25 one in my account and I will be receiving a $25 coupon for completing a survey.



You mean the Eventide Blackhole?

Yeah I have $50 owing to me to0. I'm probably going to get the Transient Designer plugin.


----------



## Australian

scat7s said:


> is it true VST3 are supposed to be more efficient on cpu useage?/ or am i making that up?




Its true.


----------



## Codeman

Hey everyone,

So, I have been using an AKG Perception 120 condensor mic and a Tascam DR-40 for simple recordings. What would you say is the go to setup for mic, mixing, converting to mp3's on a budget. What I'm doing seems to work well but I'm wondering what else is out there without going overboard.


----------



## blues_n_cues

Codeman said:


> Hey everyone,
> 
> I'm wondering what else is out there without going overboard.



good luck w/ that....
it's an addiction,,a very spendy addiction.

right off the top of my head-
good monitors
good phones
acoustic room treatment
clean power w/ voltage regulation


----------



## Frodebro

Codeman said:


> Hey everyone,
> 
> So, I have been using an AKG Perception 120 condensor mic and a Tascam DR-40 for simple recordings. What would you say is the go to setup for mic, mixing, converting to mp3's on a budget. What I'm doing seems to work well but I'm wondering what else is out there without going overboard.





blues_n_cues said:


> good luck w/ that....
> it's an addiction,,a very spendy addiction.
> 
> right off the top of my head-
> good monitors
> good phones
> acoustic room treatment
> clean power w/ voltage regulation



Indeed, the moment you asked yourself "What else is out there?" it was already too late. Your options now are to either walk away from it all and take up needlepoint, or accept your fate and plunge headfirst into the rabbit hole.


----------



## Codeman

Frodebro said:


> Indeed, the moment you asked yourself "What else is out there?" it was already too late. Your options now are to either walk away from it all and take up needlepoint, or accept your fate and plunge headfirst into the rabbit hole.



Well, my saving grace is that I'm a college student with a shoe-string budget. There are many benefits in researching when you have no money. 

Speaking of which I've heard there are free DAW's, but the real question is whether they are any good or not. Thoughts?


----------



## blues_n_cues

Codeman said:


> Well, my saving grace is that I'm a college student with a shoe-string budget. There are many benefits in researching when you have no money.
> 
> Speaking of which I've heard there are free DAW's, but the real question is whether they are any good or not. Thoughts?



Reaper is the best "free" DAW although it's not really free if you have scruples.lol
I've been using Mixcraft for years & it's the best bang for the buck and about the cheapest & easiest out there. 

if you're a poor college student w/ little room I'd say get good phones & a midi keyboard controller so you can do vst's (drums,strings,keyboards,etc.etc.)

I have this one & it works well even though it doesn't have semi-weighted keys-
http://alesis.com/products/legacy/q49

others. 
(you may not need 49 keys but that's about the minimum for doing piano parts w/ 2 hands.)
http://www.musiciansfriend.com/midi...profileCountryCode=US&profileCurrencyCode=USD


----------



## scat7s

reaper is 60 bucks. top notch program.


----------



## minerman

Hey guys, just dropping by to say howdy...

Reaper is a very good daw IMHO, & does about anything you'd want. I've read about other daw's having better midi tools/workflow, but honestly, for what I do (drum vsti's mostly), it's more than adequate....YMMV....

The reason I'm posting here though is IK Multimedia has released Amplitube 4, & IMHO is a big step up from version 3. There are 5 new "Brit" amp models, along with some new cabs that IMHO, sound pretty realistic (with some work/tweaking of course)...The new cabs are a step up IMO because there are 29 different speaker choices (lots of Celestions, along with some Jensen & others) that actually sound pretty close to what they're modeling (again, IMO, YMMV)...

Of course, this won't replace my amp, cab & mic setup, but for silent recording/playing, it's a step up from AT3, again IMO...

http://www.ikmultimedia.com/products/amplitube4/

Here are some pics/screenshots I made:

JMP-1 preamp:




JCM800:




JCM900:




Silver Jubilee:




Marshall Major:




Speaker selection:




FX Loop:




Another big improvement is the insert/fx loop between the amp & cab. It's more like having a loop than the other version, because it doesn't do weird things to the stereo field (IE: it doesn't spread the sound out un-naturally, it behaves more like a real amp would with effects in the loop)...Plus you're able to insert any effect in the loop, like an eq, & it behaves like it should (IE: using an eq in the loop for shaping the sound)...

Sorry for the long-ass post, but just wanted to throw this out here, as I've been under the weather for a while, & haven't been around very much...

And again, this isn't gonna replace my real amp, cab, & mics, but it is a good sounding emulation, & a super way to play/record silently if noise is an issue (like late at night)...


----------



## blues_n_cues

cool. too bad it's 64 bit only but I'm sure jbridge could be used to run it on 32 bit systems-
https://jstuff.wordpress.com/jbridge/

https://jstuff.wordpress.com/jbridgem/


----------



## minerman

blues_n_cues said:


> cool. too bad it's 64 bit only but I'm sure jbridge could be used to run it on 32 bit systems-
> https://jstuff.wordpress.com/jbridge/
> 
> https://jstuff.wordpress.com/jbridgem/


Yeah it sucks it's only x64, but, maybe it's time to upgrade to a x64 system...The pc I use is x64, & I bought it about 5 1/2 years ago just so I could go 64-bit...But only recently have I switched over to x64, mainly so I could use more RAM (drum vsti's)....


----------



## blues_n_cues

RE: high CPU usage & a malware warning- 
http://www.howtogeek.com/209654/scammers-are-using-a-fake-version-of-adwcleaner-to-trick-people/

https://blog.malwarebytes.org/security-threat/2015/05/fake-adblocker-bylekh-is-an-lsp-hijacker/

http://www.wintips.org/how-to-fix-msmpeng-exe-high-cpu-usage-problem/#solution-3


----------



## blues_n_cues

adding a second hard drive for recording the easy way-
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9w3MNl-Ejk[/ame]

setting it up for DAW work-

http://www.homestudiocorner.com/12-home-studio-necessities-7-externaldedicated-hard-drive/

(the short version)

One final thing. You may be wondering how exactly you use the external drive with your DAW. Basically, all you do is save your session to the external drive. When you first create a session for a song, it will give you an option to choose a hard drive where you want that session and all its corresponding audio to reside. You don’t need to install your DAW or your operating system on your external drives. They simply hold your audio.

Install software on the system drive. Save your audio sessions to your external (or second internal) drive.

with Pro Tools
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEf0_WI1IhU

Logic-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkAKLkd190A

disclaimer- there's quite a few ways to go about it & it could be a whole sub-section unto itself.


----------



## blues_n_cues

minerman said:


> Yeah it sucks it's only x64, but, maybe it's time to upgrade to a x64 system...The pc I use is x64, & I bought it about 5 1/2 years ago just so I could go 64-bit...But only recently have I switched over to x64, mainly so I could use more RAM (drum vsti's)....



I'm debating going up to x64 I just need to find a 775 socket MOBO that works in this tower case and I found a PAE "hack" patch that allows you to use up to 64gb RAM on a 32 bit Windows system.

I'll post more about that later.


----------



## blues_n_cues

FREE Sennheiser DrumMic'a drum plugin w/ mics.
(translate from German)
http://de-de.sennheiser.com/drummica


----------



## scat7s

blues_n_cues said:


> FREE Sennheiser DrumMic'a drum plugin w/ mics.
> (translate from German)
> http://de-de.sennheiser.com/drummica



is that a free trial for really for free?

edit n/m I found some info in English 

thanks blues!


----------



## Australian

A new way to mic acoustic guitars and amps?

http://www.studio-one.expert/studio...ll-that-will-revolutionise-the-music-industry


----------



## blues_n_cues

Komplete Elements on sale right now.
http://www.musiciansfriend.com/soft...native-instruments-komplete-elements-software

http://www.native-instruments.com/en/products/komplete/bundles/komplete-elements/

http://www.native-instruments.com/en/products/komplete/bundles/komplete-elements/included-products/


----------



## blues_n_cues

fixing to order a new mic or two-

http://www.mxlmics.com/microphones/studio/V67g-HE/

http://www.ebay.com/itm/MXL-V67G-He...286419?hash=item210778ed93:g:Vj4AAOSwk1JWegFz

http://www.musiciansfriend.com/ribbon-microphones/mxl-heritage-edition-of-the-mxl-r144-ribbon


----------



## mott555

I just picked up a couple Tascam TM-80 condensor mics. They're cheap but sound pretty decent to me. Very sensitive, works well for voice-over work and also acoustic guitar. They actually don't sound too bad for miking a guitar cabinet though they don't beat my SM-57's. If I could actually pump some volume I think they'd be good ambient/room mics for a guitar amp, but I can't try that without risking police intervention at my apartment.

I don't know what changed in me but the SM-57's now sound absolutely perfect. It might be because I'm finally not running all knobs at 12 on my 2204. That sounds great in the room but was always harsh when miked up. Now it's all fairly flat, with the trebles cranked up a bit, and the presence is out-of-circuit since I have my PPIMV dialed in to make the master volume less sensitive.


----------



## Coronado

Blues created this one year ago tomorrow, and it has been one of the most helpful threads to me for learning new techniques and better ways of recording. Thanks to all you guys who have shared so much great and helpful info!


----------



## blues_n_cues

Coronado said:


> Blues created this one year ago tomorrow, and it has been one of the most helpful threads to me for learning new techniques and better ways of recording. Thanks to all you guys who have shared so much great and helpful info!


----------



## blues_n_cues

Australian said:


> A new way to mic acoustic guitars and amps?
> 
> http://www.studio-one.expert/studio...ll-that-will-revolutionise-the-music-industry



link doesn't work but you may be interested in this-
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/blumlein-stereo-microphone-technique.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blumlein_Pair

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psclm3HTF4g[/ame]


----------



## Ghostman

Thanks to Micky, I'm one step closer to my setup. I have some furniture changes coming soon but for now, I think this will do.


----------



## Ghostman

I built up a shelf for my heads to sit in, and give me more room for equipment on top. Spent not that much dough and it works out much better. 

Before:





After:


----------



## blues_n_cues

Ghostman said:


> I built up a shelf for my heads to sit in, and give me more room for equipment on top. Spent not that much dough and it works out much better.
> 
> Before:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After:


----------



## blues_n_cues

Treehouse Masters recording studio-
cool concept if you can get past the host & all the bad puns-
http://www.animalplanet.com/tv-show...estic-treehouse-recording-studio-is-revealed/

https://www.google.com/search?q=ouse+masters+recording+studio#q=treehouse+masters+recording+studio


----------



## Ghostman

That's damn cool


----------



## Dmann

Just sharing

[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWnYFRXHYgE[/ame]


----------



## tschrama

Nice! I have used that for a while and it works great. Few remarks: the SM57 have a huge proximity effect, so you do need a high pass, preferably during recording. 

Any two-mic recording (wether 2 SM57 at 45degrees, or any other like a ribbon of LDC) allways works better for me and gives just a fuller, more realistic sound. I'm thinking because you get to record more than just one small part of the cone.


----------



## Chasmar

blues_n_cues said:


> Treehouse Masters recording studio-
> cool concept if you can get past the host & all the bad puns-
> http://www.animalplanet.com/tv-show...estic-treehouse-recording-studio-is-revealed/
> https://www.google.com/search?q=ouse+masters+recording+studio#q=treehouse+masters+recording+studio



Wow! You must be a very poor person. I feel bad for you.


----------



## Coronado

blues_n_cues said:


> Treehouse Masters recording studio-
> cool concept if you can get past the host & all the bad puns-
> http://www.animalplanet.com/tv-show...estic-treehouse-recording-studio-is-revealed/
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=ouse+masters+recording+studio#q=treehouse+masters+recording+studio



Damn Blues, that has got to be one of the coolest things I have ever seen... I would absolutely LOVE to experience something like that.


----------



## blues_n_cues

Chasmar said:


> Wow! You must be a very poor person. I feel bad for you.



lol.that's not MY studio. load-ins would be a b*tch.


----------



## 12barjunkie

Made some much needed changes lately. I moved my recording desk away from the wall and put my monitors up on stands. What a dramatic difference! I'm definitely going to order a sub now and toying with the idea of getting a subharmonic generator. I'm on the quest for the "brown note"


----------



## Frodebro

I see some major changes on the horizon as well. I've been running a 2011 Mac Mini Server for a number of years, and everything I have is Firewire 800, which Apple is no longer supporting as of the last OS update. So I either stay right where I'm at, or I use it as an excuse to replace everything with current technology that is open for future updates.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

12barjunkie said:


> Made some much needed changes lately. I moved my recording desk away from the wall and put my monitors up on stands. What a dramatic difference! I'm definitely going to order a sub now and toying with the idea of getting a subharmonic generator. I'm on the quest for the "brown note"


When I bought my Yamaha monitors, I was reading through some literature somewhere. It was saying that the best place to have your reference monitors is in the center of the room, & your listening place against the wall. I've found that the sound is amazing that way, but, it takes a bit of getting used to. You need to dial in the sub & everything, but, the clarity in mixes is just amazing, compared to the boxy sound you get when the speakers are against a wall...


----------



## 12barjunkie

Dogs of Doom said:


> When I bought my Yamaha monitors, I was reading through some literature somewhere. It was saying that the best place to have your reference monitors is in the center of the room, & your listening place against the wall. I've found that the sound is amazing that way, but, it takes a bit of getting used to. You need to dial in the sub & everything, but, the clarity in mixes is just amazing, compared to the boxy sound you get when the speakers are against a wall...



Absolutely  I went ahead and pulled the trigger on the sub. I also sprang for a DBX 120a subharmonic synth and a DBX 160a compressor. I'm really stoked! I've been doing less blues lately and going in the stoner/doom direction.....having a great time, but really wanting to get some of that Reggae/ Club bass action going on. 

This has really been a great year for me so far. I aquired an Epi LP and a Martin acoustic, both of which I absolutely LOVE! I have been planning on upgrading my studio in two waves. Today was the first wave and next year comes the new computer and software


----------



## 12barjunkie

Frodebro said:


> I see some major changes on the horizon as well. I've been running a 2011 Mac Mini Server for a number of years, and everything I have is Firewire 800, which Apple is no longer supporting as of the last OS update. So I either stay right where I'm at, or I use it as an excuse to replace everything with current technology that is open for future updates.



Ha, I feel ya man. I'm using a Sony Vaio from 2004 , Windows XP and 2 (yes 2) gb of RAM. I generally don't run many VSTs, so it works for me, but yeah, I'm due


----------



## Frodebro

12barjunkie said:


> Ha, I feel ya man. I'm using a Sony Vaio from 2004 , Windows XP and 2 (yes 2) gb of RAM. I generally don't run many VSTs, so it works for me, but yeah, I'm due




I've got the Mini maxed out at 16GB RAM, but I use a lot of plug-ins and virtual instruments. It's a quad core 2.0 GHz i7, so it's not the fastest nor the slowest, but it keeps up with my projects pretty well. Still, the pending obsolescence of Firewire (and subsequent lack of future support for hardware) is telling me that it's time to start planning for a new system. Plus, I put this one together while I was still learning about everything, so there are things that I would like to do differently with a dedicated recording rig. But man, getting the nerve up to spend that much money...


----------



## 12barjunkie

Frodebro said:


> I've got the Mini maxed out at 16GB RAM, but I use a lot of plug-ins and virtual instruments. It's a quad core 2.0 GHz i7, so it's not the fastest nor the slowest, but it keeps up with my projects pretty well. Still, the pending obsolescence of Firewire (and subsequent lack of future support for hardware) is telling me that it's time to start planning for a new system. Plus, I put this one together while I was still learning about everything, so there are things that I would like to do differently with a dedicated recording rig. But man, getting the nerve up to spend that much money...



Yeah, trying to justify that kind of cash output is what's prevented me from upgrading also. I put my skill set in one hand and what I can justify spending in the other hand and I'm like "what can I get for $100?" Lol!


----------



## Frodebro

12barjunkie said:


> Yeah, trying to justify that kind of cash output is what's prevented me from upgrading also. I put my skill set in one hand and what I can justify spending in the other hand and I'm like "what can I get for $100?" Lol!



The way I look at it is that if I spend the money I know I'll be motivated to make it worthwhile.


----------



## blues_n_cues

Frodebro said:


> I've got the Mini maxed out at 16GB RAM, but I use a lot of plug-ins and virtual instruments. It's a quad core 2.0 GHz i7, so it's not the fastest nor the slowest, but it keeps up with my projects pretty well. Still, the pending obsolescence of Firewire (and subsequent lack of future support for hardware) is telling me that it's time to start planning for a new system. Plus, I put this one together while I was still learning about everything, so there are things that I would like to do differently with a dedicated recording rig. But man, getting the nerve up to spend that much money...



there's another angle- a limit on resource usage is kinda like setting a timer on a mixing session,it forces you to do something & move on.


----------



## tresmarshallz

cool thread, just found it, as I have been building a cheap and simple home recording setup for a drummer and myself.
Curious if anyone else has done something similar with iPad/iPhone type setup.

So here is what I have:
1. Behringer XENYX USB mixer, which allows me to USB out of mixer into iPad, the key to this is finding an iPad/phone Camera Kit Adapter, which allows this USB to lighting connection.
2. Free iPad multi-track software MTSR recorder pro.
3. Small inexpensive monitors for playback.
4. Normally when recording guitar I dual track the guitar, one track DI box panned left the other track cab mic-ed panned right, sounds huge. If I need late night silent recording I just run my amp into a dummy load and use a DI box for the whole signal.

The USB mixer to iPad with MTSR has handled everything I have thrown at it so far, recording multiple tracks at once etc, never locks up or slows down, sound quality is there.


----------



## 12barjunkie

blues_n_cues said:


> there's another angle- a limit on resource usage is kinda like setting a timer on a mixing session,it forces you to do something & move on.



Sh*t man, Blues could get a great recording from a tin can and a piece of twine connected to a cardboard box!


----------



## blues_n_cues

12barjunkie said:


> Sh*t man, Blues could get a great recording from a tin can and a piece of twine connected to a cardboard box!



damn,my secret is out.lol


----------



## Coronado

tresmarshallz said:


> *cool thread*, just found it, as I have been building a cheap and simple home recording setup for a drummer and myself.
> Curious if anyone else has done something similar with iPad/iPhone type setup.
> 
> So here is what I have:
> 1. Behringer XENYX USB mixer, which allows me to USB out of mixer into iPad, the key to this is finding an iPad/phone Camera Kit Adapter, which allows this USB to lighting connection.
> 2. Free iPad multi-track software MTSR recorder pro.
> 3. Small inexpensive monitors for playback.
> 4. Normally when recording guitar I dual track the guitar, one track DI box panned left the other track cab mic-ed panned right, sounds huge. If I need late night silent recording I just run my amp into a dummy load and use a DI box for the whole signal.
> 
> The USB mixer to iPad with MTSR has handled everything I have thrown at it so far, recording multiple tracks at once etc, never locks up or slows down, sound quality is there.



This is my favorite thread - I was pumped when Blues created it a while back. I don't gig, but I love recording and set up somewhat of a work in progress studio in my house. This thread has been such an excellent way to learn new recording tricks and techniques, as well as recommendations on gear.


----------



## Frodebro

blues_n_cues said:


> there's another angle- a limit on resource usage is kinda like setting a timer on a mixing session,it forces you to do something & move on.



I don't have any problems with system resources, but it's gotten to the point that stability is becoming an issue. About one out of four startups the computer doesn't see the interface, and I have to reboot everything a few times to get everything functioning together.


----------



## 4Horseman

Frodebro said:


> I don't have any problems with system resources, but it's gotten to the point that stability is becoming an issue. About one out of four startups the computer doesn't see the interface, and I have to reboot everything a few times to get everything functioning together.


That happens to me too, very frustrating. It seems like there's a short window of time after start up when I can plug in and power up my interface. I've wondered if this common or not.


----------



## tresmarshallz

I think when the computer does not see the port there is some other thing plugged in or application service that is attempting to use the same resource/port, it could be hard to figure our what though. Maybe try booting the computer when nothing else is plugged in, no other USB ports etc.
Or another app on the system is installed that is creating a port conflict etc. That could be tough to track down but worth the effort probably.


----------



## Frodebro

tresmarshallz said:


> I think when the computer does not see the port there is some other thing plugged in or application service that is attempting to use the same resource/port, it could be hard to figure our what though. Maybe try booting the computer when nothing else is plugged in, no other USB ports etc.
> Or another app on the system is installed that is creating a port conflict etc. That could be tough to track down but worth the effort probably.



The computer I'm having issues with is a dedicated recording-only computer, it's not used for anything else and nothing is ever changed. It worked flawlessly for a long time, and only recently has it started acting up (after four OS upgrades, but there hasn't been any upgrades in quite a while).


----------



## minerman

Frodebro said:


> The computer I'm having issues with is a dedicated recording-only computer, it's not used for anything else and nothing is ever changed. It worked flawlessly for a long time, and only recently has it started acting up (after four OS upgrades, but there hasn't been any upgrades in quite a while).



My recording pc is over 6 years old now, & still goin'....I've still got over half the 1tb audio drive's space free, even after 6 years of use...But, I'm thinking my power supply is going out, because if/when I turn the pc off, sometimes it doesn't wanna re-boot, so I never turn it off...

I have automatic updates turned completely off, I can't remember how long it's been since this thing updated, no anti-virus running, nothing like that. I don't use it for internet very often, once in a while maybe. It wasn't a powerhouse machine when I got it (AMD quad core 8GB RAM, 2 - 1TB hdd's, bought an extra & installed it myself), but it's proven to be a good one. I wanted an i7, but settled for the AMD, because the price was much lower, & there are ways to free up system resources in the daw by freezing/rendering/bouncing tracks down that have CPU intense plug-ins on 'em...
Eventually, I wanna upgrade & buy a new one, but, I don't want Windows 8 or 10, at all from what I've read. I may have a hard time finding what I want, dunno, cross that bridge when this one shits the bed, & won't work at all.....


----------



## blues_n_cues

when was the last time y'all cleaned your computers?
I only plug my interface in when I'm using it-it doesn't stay plugged in all the time.

do you guys have usb hubs?
it could also be time for a new processor or @ least new thermo paste for the one you have if it's been that long.
try this-
https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/19792/Intel-Processor-Diagnostic-Tool


----------



## Coronado

That's a great point Blues - if I don't stay on top of my computer, the performance definitely begins to decline. A little while back I picked up a 4 TB external to keep my projects stored. This helps keep free up my laptop, and if it ever dies, I will have it saved. I use a dedicated laptop for my recordings, and avoid connecting to the internet as much as possible to try and keep the unwanted stuff from attaching to it. I also go into my task manager and suspend a handful of programs that take up too much CPU. This has significantly helped, especially on those songs that are considerably large (tons of tracks and effects).


----------



## blues_n_cues

yeah,even a new fan can make a difference. I recently upgraded my processor,fans,& a couple of other things plus I run this in the background-
http://www.wisecleaner.com/wise-memory-optimizer.html

also-running CCleaner registry cleaner/repair on occasion helps a lot.
https://www.piriform.com/ccleaner


----------



## Coronado

I have been using EZDrummer for a while now. To try and keep things somewhat new and to try and increase my options, I bought the additional packs. After a while, even that starts to get a bit old and you start seeing the same types of patterns. So I try to adjust the timing to mix things up a bit, and mix different parts. I would like to try another drum tool, perhaps Superior Drummer or Addictive Drums?


----------



## minerman

blues_n_cues said:


> when was the last time y'all cleaned your computers?
> I only plug my interface in when I'm using it-it doesn't stay plugged in all the time.
> 
> do you guys have usb hubs?
> it could also be time for a new processor or @ least new thermo paste for the one you have if it's been that long.
> try this-
> https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/19792/Intel-Processor-Diagnostic-Tool



I actually took my pc apart about a month or so ago, & blew the dustbunnies that would come out, & hand cleaned the rest. I was a mess in there to say the least, & that seemed to help a little...I usually re-load my OS about once every 6 months or so, but haven't done that in over a year because of the health issues I've been having. It's pretty much like new when I do this, as it wipes everything off & starts over. The only thing about doing this is it takes a couple days to re-install all the software I have, in particular, the drum software, as I have an unreal amount of Toontrack, Addictive Drums, Steven Slate, etc...I may tear into that one day this week & report back, but I already know it'll help, again, it wipes everything clean, then starts fresh...

But, this pc is over 6 years old now, & I wanted an i7 when I got it, but I settled for an AMD processor, which IMO is great for the $$$, but I really wanna get an Intel i7 based pc before too long...



Coronado said:


> I have been using EZDrummer for a while now. To try and keep things somewhat new and to try and increase my options, I bought the additional packs. After a while, even that starts to get a bit old and you start seeing the same types of patterns. So I try to adjust the timing to mix things up a bit, and mix different parts. I would like to try another drum tool, perhaps Superior Drummer or Addictive Drums?



Superior Drummer if you've already got EZD2. AD2 is great too, but you'll save a little $$$ by upgrading to SD. Either SD or AD2 sound really good, & there's the option of multi-outputs in your daw, so you can use eq, compression, & different reverbs (which is what I do)...

You can usually find an upgrade to SD where EZD2 is sold, & again, that'll save a little $$$...

For the "performance" thing you mentioned, I use Jamstix 3 (version 4 is about to be released) for most of this. You can control everything a real drummer would do with this program. While it is complicated, their user forum is great, lots of help when you get stuck...Something else I have is a small e-kit, & while I'm not a drummer, playing the kit actually taught me a lot about how someone would really play the songs I'm trying to do, just sayin'...


----------



## blues_n_cues

minerman said:


> Something else I have is a small e-kit, & while I'm not a drummer, playing the kit actually taught me a lot about how someone would really play the songs I'm trying to do, just sayin'...



same here. nothing sticks out worse than a 3 armed drummer.lol


----------



## Frodebro

blues_n_cues said:


> when was the last time y'all cleaned your computers?
> I only plug my interface in when I'm using it-it doesn't stay plugged in all the time.
> 
> do you guys have usb hubs?
> it could also be time for a new processor or @ least new thermo paste for the one you have if it's been that long.
> try this-
> https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/19792/Intel-Processor-Diagnostic-Tool



My interface (FW800) is plugged in all the time, but the only time I fire up that computer is when I'm working with the DAW. I can try cleaning all the connections, but at this point I already have decided to upgrade everything in a few months. Then that computer will be delegated to other things.


----------



## Coronado

Great points on the drums - thanks! Minerman, I appreciate the info on SD, think I will give that option a try. I will also take a look at Jamstix. I would love the ability to try and bring some real life into my drum parts. 

3 armed drummer! HA! That's so true though... While I appreciate how much talent goes into making these drum tracks, they are just too perfect, and it seems to take away from the song. 

I have been looking at some different E drum sets. Quite a big price difference between say like the Behringer XD8 ($329 at Sweetwater) and then the Roland TD-30KV which stomps in at close to $8k. Are there some E kits that you would recommend?


----------



## blues_n_cues

I have an older Yamaha DTXpress (has midi but not usb) which I did some trading for so I basically got it for $100 & added an extra pad so it's now a 6 piece.

you can find used kits for pretty cheap,especially a couple months after x-mas. since you'll be using VST drums & the e-kit as just triggers the "brain" doesn't have to have all the bells & whistles or awesome tones (even though mine has a few).

if you want to build a kit try this guy. he's good to deal with for individual pieces-
http://stores.ebay.com/DrumzRUs-Store

my kit-










or go hybrid-






edit-I will upgrade someday so I can add a double kick pedal and add another brain so I can double the kit or add more cymbals.


----------



## minerman

I bought a Yamaha DTX-400 about 15 months ago: http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/DTX400K

While the hi-hat only has 2 sounds when hit with the stick, you can go into the midi editor & change 'em after you've recorded your playing. My kit's brain uses usb btw...I can upgrade my hh controller so it will have like 3 sounds/midi notes (closed, half-open, open), but it doesn't make any sense for me to do that, as I'm gonna edit the midi performance in my daw anyway...And if I were to upgrade anything, I'd just buy another upgraded drum brain so I could have all the articulations...YMMV

If you're a competent drummer that can play, I'd recommend the kit that's a couple steps above, the DXT500 series. It has lots more features, but, it also costs more too, but that's only if you're a drummer. For someone like me, it didn't make any sense to spend a lot on this, because I didn't know if I'd stick with it or not...


----------



## Riff

You mean no one uses an Alesis SR 16 drum machine like I still do?

Well, ain't y'all all fancy and stuff.


----------



## Frodebro

Riff said:


> You mean no one uses an Alesis SR 16 drum machine like I still do?
> 
> Well, ain't y'all all fancy and stuff.



Spend some time with a plug-in & a piano roll and you'll never look back.


----------



## Riff

Frodebro said:


> Spend some time with a plug-in & a piano roll and you'll never look back.


I bought Superior Drummer but I didn't know I needed a midi editor to use it which I don't have so back it went. 

They should make it where you create the drum track in the drum software and have a finished track that you can import to a stereo track in your DAW. That's what I thought SD was when I bought it.


----------



## Coronado

Been looking into some E Drum kits. I like the Yamaha's that Blues and Minerman use. I found a site "8 best E drum kits" and started to go through each one, checking out the prices and where I can find them. http://ehomerecordingstudio.com/best-electronic-drums/ Lots of choices, and the prices (for the most part) were fairly reasonable. Some of them can get way expensive. What I'm looking for is something that sounds as close to a traditional set as possible. I also want to take into consideration that once I buy it, will I want to upgrade, so I want to shoot a tad higher so that I'm not always looking to its big brother wishing I had bought it instead. I don't know a whole lot about e-drums, so I probably need to try a few out. I LOVE the fact that they are quiet, and that you don't have to mic them. I like that once you create your drum track, you can then run it into your DAW. I use Studio One, and assume that most E drums are compatible? Are there any benefits to having a kick drum pad vs. the ones that don't strike a physical pad? Which sets do you like the best? Thanks so much!


----------



## 12barjunkie

Riff said:


> You mean no one uses an Alesis SR 16 drum machine like I still do?
> 
> Well, ain't y'all all fancy and stuff.



I still use mine to tap out some parts here and there.......sh*t man, I ain't too proud to admit it


----------



## Coronado

Riff said:


> I bought Superior Drummer but I didn't know I needed a midi editor to use it which I don't have so back it went.
> 
> They should make it where you create the drum track in the drum software and have a finished track that you can import to a stereo track in your DAW. That's what I thought SD was when I bought it.



I didn't know that either... I thought it would be similar to EZDrmr?


----------



## minerman

Riff said:


> I bought Superior Drummer but I didn't know I needed a midi editor to use it which I don't have so back it went.
> 
> They should make it where you create the drum track in the drum software and have a finished track that you can import to a stereo track in your DAW. That's what I thought SD was when I bought it.


http://www.toontrack.com/product/toontrack-solo/

You can record the midi into your daw, in real-time, & have it output to a stereo track using SD's internal mixer. I think you should've gotten Toontrack Solo free with Superior, I'm not sure, but I think it's free if you own SD/EZD....But if you record your midi into the daw, you won't even need that...Reaper isn't really free, but you can use it as long as you want without paying anything for it dude...

I use a stereo track until I get the performance how I want, then I use the multi-output in my daw, so I can use eq, compression & different reverbs on my drums if I wanna...There are lots of ways to get this done, & everybody does it a little different...



Coronado said:


> Been looking into some E Drum kits. I like the Yamaha's that Blues and Minerman use. I found a site "8 best E drum kits" and started to go through each one, checking out the prices and where I can find them. http://ehomerecordingstudio.com/best-electronic-drums/ Lots of choices, and the prices (for the most part) were fairly reasonable. Some of them can get way expensive. What I'm looking for is something that sounds as close to a traditional set as possible. I also want to take into consideration that once I buy it, will I want to upgrade, so I want to shoot a tad higher so that I'm not always looking to its big brother wishing I had bought it instead. I don't know a whole lot about e-drums, so I probably need to try a few out. I LOVE the fact that they are quiet, and that you don't have to mic them. I like that once you create your drum track, you can then run it into your DAW. I use Studio One, and assume that most E drums are compatible? Are there any benefits to having a kick drum pad vs. the ones that don't strike a physical pad? Which sets do you like the best? Thanks so much!



I'd recommend the Yamaha 5xx series man. You can upgrade later on, as long as you've got the DTX 5xx series brain/module. I bought the DTX400, & the only thing I can upgrade is the hi-hat controller, but I knew this when I bought the kit. I just need something to lay down a beat quick, & I can always edit the midi performance in the daw...

I did some re-arranging today, & took a pic. Here's what my room looks like now, after I hung some of my guitars up, & re-arranged some of the acoustic panels I made:


----------



## Coronado

Great advice, thanks again Minerman! Definitley going to check out the Yamaha DTX 5 series. They were priced pretty fair, and they got great reviews. I'm digging your studio room brother! Looks great! Have you noticed some improvements with your acoustic panels? I've been looking at picking some up and was curious how significant the improvement is. Love your collection of guitars - I see you got all your bases covered! You got your Gibson LP, SG, Strat for the single coil sounds, AND an Ibanez for those days you feel like heating up that neck!! Pretty damn cool brother!


----------



## minerman

Coronado said:


> Great advice, thanks again Minerman! Definitley going to check out the Yamaha DTX 5 series. They were priced pretty fair, and they got great reviews. I'm digging your studio room brother! Looks great! Have you noticed some improvements with your acoustic panels? I've been looking at picking some up and was curious how significant the improvement is. Love your collection of guitars - I see you got all your bases covered! You got your Gibson LP, SG, Strat for the single coil sounds, AND an Ibanez for those days you feel like heating up that neck!! Pretty damn cool brother!



The DTX "5" series should cover everything you need starting out, & IIRC, you can upgrade with that brain later when you're ready. I kinda wish I'd gotten that instead of the DTX400, but for what I do with it, it's fine...

Those acoustic panels do help with the flutter/room sound (which is terrible in this room without 'em), but they don't do anything for the low end. I need to build some bass traps, but I'm not sure I'd be able to have enough to make a difference the way the room is laid out...I'm still debating on how to go about it...

Thanks for the compliment on the room/guitars, each one is special in it's own way, but right now, the new SG is the main guitar...That may change in time, because it's new...thanks again!!!


----------



## minerman

Coronado said:


> Have you noticed some improvements with your acoustic panels? I've been looking at picking some up and was curious how significant the improvement is.



I just realized what you said dude...Myself, I wouldn't buy any panels, you can make 'em for about half (or less) as much $$$. I need to put another wrap of burlap on mine because you can see the wood frame through it right now. Just google "making acoustic panels", & you'll find out what you need...I've saw some people use metal frames, which would be cool too (probably lighter too, just guessing), but I used wood for mine. IIRC, I've got about $140-150 total in these 8 (2 -2'x4' & 6 -2'x2') panels I made. The highest thing is the rockwool, it was about $80 or so...And I'm sure you can make 'em look better than mine, this was my first time. If/when I ever make any more, I'll know more what/what not to do...

Here's a video making some of the metal framed panels:


----------



## Coronado

Totally agree - I've seen these at GC and other places asking like $180 what I could buy at a fabric store. And the ones at GC are literally just like the foam padding. There is a place here in Dallas called Joanns (my wife likes to drag me there) and they sell tons of arts and crafts stuff (kind of like a Michaels, but more around fabrics I would say). In the back they have literally walls of this padding, and I swear in the 5 years she's been going there, I don't think I've seem that stuff move. I was thinking of buying a bunch of it and doing what you did. Just makes way more sense. I can then just cut the notches in it like GC has (if that even helps?).


----------



## Coronado

Got my dang Rock Crusher in on Thursday. Up to my neck in work, so this morning was the first chance I had to mess with it. I need to buy another dang amp cable... Now the wife has a list of things she wants to do, so hopefully tomorrow morning I'll get the chance to fire it up. Dying to try it out!


----------



## minerman

Coronado said:


> Totally agree - I've seen these at GC and other places asking like $180 what I could buy at a fabric store. And the ones at GC are literally just like the foam padding. There is a place here in Dallas called Joanns (my wife likes to drag me there) and they sell tons of arts and crafts stuff (kind of like a Michaels, but more around fabrics I would say). In the back they have literally walls of this padding, and I swear in the 5 years she's been going there, I don't think I've seem that stuff move. I was thinking of buying a bunch of it and doing what you did. Just makes way more sense. I can then just cut the notches in it like GC has (if that even helps?).



The panels I made don't have "padding" in 'em dude. I used Roxul Safe-N-Sound, which is rockwool insulation. There's an equivalent Owens Corning 703 I think, & either would be fine. But you need to use insulation for the panels. Just trying to make sure you know what you need for it to be effective...

http://www.roxul.com/residential/create+a+quiet+home/which+safe+n+sound

I used the 24" myself for the 2'x4' panels, then cut 'em in half for my 2'x2' smaller panels...

Most of the other stuff you can buy at a craft store, like the burlap/cloth to cover it with...The framing depends on what you wanna use really, those metal frames look good, & would probably be a bit lighter than wood, but for me, the wood is better because I used a staplegun to attach the cloth. Plus, I can just stick a hook/hanger in it about anywhere with just my hands (a couple of my panels I stuck a hook on 'em, & hang some of my cables there). Using the metal you might have to drill holes or use rivets to do this...

I actually need basstraps in my room, but the way it's laid out, I'm not sure how I'll go about it. I can put 'em in a couple corners, but a couple I can't. I'll have to do some thinking on how to go about this...

The panels I have right now do knock a lot of the reflections down, but they don't really help the low end, but eventually I'll make some basstraps to try to fix that too...


----------



## Coronado

Hey guys, what does a re-amp box do? Do you need one of these when you use a DAW like Studio One or ProTools?


----------



## minerman

Coronado said:


> Hey guys, what does a re-amp box do? Do you need one of these when you use a DAW like Studio One or ProTools?



A re-amp box lets you send the di signal of your guitar, out of your interface into your amp. You don't really have to have one to record in your daw, but they are handy little boxes if you record at night with an ampsim (little to no volume/silently), & wanna re-record later using your real amp (loud)...

There are diy kits out there for about $50 or so, but I bought a Radial RMP, & use it on every guitar track I record, tracking the di & amp'd tone at the same time. The reason I do this is if I wanna change the guitar tone/sound, all I have to do is re-record the amp'd track. Doing this can actually let you concentrate on the amp'd sound because you don't have to play while you're adjusting the mic/amp/whatever, the di is playing from the daw into the amp...


----------



## Coronado

Just realized that the 12 gauge is thicker than the 16 or 18 gauge. Rock Crusher requires 18 gauge, so should be good with 12 gauge cable. Forgot for a bit there that and almost ran back to GC to pick up 18 gauge! HA!


----------



## Ghostman

New Mic day: Sterling ST51. Traded my third Crate BV412 cab in and got some money back.


----------



## Coronado

Nice mic Ghost! Bet that bad boy sound good with that Crate! From what I have read, those ST51's have a crisp sound - my kind of tone. Bet I would dig that mic! Congrats!


----------



## Ghostman

Coronado said:


> Nice mic Ghost! Bet that bad boy sound good with that Crate! From what I have read, those ST51's have a crisp sound - my kind of tone. Bet I would dig that mic! Congrats!



Honestly I had no idea what I was getting myself into with this mic. I was looking at the MXL line of mics, but GC doesn't carry them in house. So I relied on the sales guys suggestion and bought this uninvestigated, figuring that I could take it back if I didn't like it. Very crisp and the reviews all say it's a bright mic. I need to mix it with my SM57 to see if I can find any differences. First short impression is that I really like the tones I can get from my cabs with this thing. So far I've only tried it with the JMD:1 head. Today I'm going to hit up the Crate head and the Vintage 30's.


----------



## johnfv

blues_n_cues said:


> ... load-ins would be a b*tch.


LOL. Some buddies of mine had a sweet 2 car garage size practice room back in the day. Unfortunately it was ON TOP of a 2 car garage. Stairs of death. They had a huge PA (remember those crazy heavy amp racks and huge subs back then?). Not all but some of the gear went down and up those stairs every gig.


----------



## minerman

Ghostman said:


> Very crisp and the reviews all say it's a bright mic. I need to mix it with my SM57 to see if I can find any differences. First short impression is that I really like the tones I can get from my cabs with this thing. So far I've only tried it with the JMD:1 head. Today I'm going to hit up the Crate head and the Vintage 30's.



I don't know if that mic can handle the high SPL's I record with, but all my other condenser mics can't. You might be able to find a happy medium though...In my experience condenser mics are great for lower-volume recording though, they've got a lot more detail than a '57 & work great on other stuff too, like vocals, acoustic guitars, etc...

You might blend that mic with your '57, using the '57 for the high-end, & the condenser for the chunk/lows. Just be sure to get the mics in phase, or it'll sound weird...


----------



## Coronado

I've been looking into mics to go with my SM57. I have read that the Senn e609 works well. Please forgive the dumb question but I wasn't sure on the process for using to mics: So you mic your cab, say the SM57 and the e609, then you plug your mic cables into your DAW. In my Studio One, that would come up as 2 different tracks (one for the SM57 and one for the e609). Perhaps you pan one left and one right. Is this how you guys would record with the 2 mics? 

Thanks!


----------



## Bubba po

minerman said:


> I don't know if that mic can handle the high SPL's I record with, but all my other condenser mics can't. You might be able to find a happy medium though...In my experience condenser mics are great for lower-volume recording though, they've got a lot more detail than a '57 & work great on other stuff too, like vocals, acoustic guitars, etc...
> 
> You might blend that mic with your '57, using the '57 for the high-end, & the condenser for the chunk/lows. Just be sure to get the mics in phase, or it'll sound weird...



Hey there, Minerdude.  I didn't know you frequented this place!


----------



## Frodebro

Coronado said:


> I've been looking into mics to go with my SM57. I have read that the Senn e609 works well. Please forgive the dumb question but I wasn't sure on the process for using to mics: So you mic your cab, say the SM57 and the e609, then you plug your mic cables into your DAW. In my Studio One, that would come up as 2 different tracks (one for the SM57 and one for the e609). Perhaps you pan one left and one right. Is this how you guys would record with the 2 mics?
> 
> Thanks!




The way I have always approached running two mics (on separate tracks) is to pan them to the same position and then adjust the mix between them until it sounds good to me. But there aren't any rules!


----------



## minerman

Bubba po said:


> Hey there, Minerdude.  I didn't know you frequented this place!



Hey Bubba!!!!! I've been a member here for quite a while, I hadn't posted here in a long time (health reasons, I know you've heard about it), but started popping in here the last little while...Good to see you dude!!!!


----------



## minerman

Coronado said:


> I've been looking into mics to go with my SM57. I have read that the Senn e609 works well. Please forgive the dumb question but I wasn't sure on the process for using to mics: So you mic your cab, say the SM57 and the e609, then you plug your mic cables into your DAW. In my Studio One, that would come up as 2 different tracks (one for the SM57 and one for the e609). Perhaps you pan one left and one right. Is this how you guys would record with the 2 mics?
> 
> Thanks!


Yeah man, you've pretty much got it there. Myself, I pan the mic tracks exactly the same, but I'm using 'em to double up for a thicker sound. IE: I'll have 2 guitars, panned out 80 L/R, so the '57 & 609 would be 80 L on one side, & 80 R on the other...But you could pan 'em out differently, just depends on what you're after...

When using 2 mics on guitars (or anything really), you need to make sure they're in phase, or it'll sound weird. Sometimes though, the phasing thing makes 'em sound bigger...

Another mic that's pretty good IMO is an Audix i5. I've only had mine a couple weeks, but it seems like a good mic for guitar cabs...


----------



## Coronado

Frodebro said:


> The way I have always approached running two mics (on separate tracks) is to pan them to the same position and then adjust the mix between them until it sounds good to me. But there aren't any rules!



Ahhh yes, now that's how ya do it... I knew there had to be a way to blend the two - kept getting stuck on thinking you didn't want to have an exact copy of the track, but when you are panning both the same direction, you actually have a _better_ blend of the two tracks! Excellent - thanks Froderbro! Tomorrow night I'm going to swing by Sam Ash and pick up a Senn. e609 mic. From what I've read, it compliments the SM57 well (hoping it has a unique enough sound from the SM57 that it creates a cool tone when blending the two).

Thanks!


----------



## Dogs of Doom

This all depends on what you want...

Here's a sample I did for the Jubilee RI last year.



I used 2 mic's on a Zoom H2n. The 5 sections represented above are:

1. Forward facing mic @ 45º angle (mono)
2. side figure 8 mic @ +/- 90º of forward mic (mono)
3. both mics as recorded, but side mic volume adjusted to match forward mic. L:forward R:side
4. both mic's from section blended (mixed) to mono
5. M/S mix, using the phasing plug-in set at 120º

Recorded a Marshall Jubilee RI w/ RI cab, loaded w/ V30's. Steve Smith @ Marshall Amplification UK.
________________

The phasing plug-in, takes the side mic's mono signal track & turns it into a dual mono track. Then it flips phase of 1 side, so, in essence, if you only played that now, stereo track on it's own, it would be silent, cancelling it's self out. But... add the mono forward track to that I the phase affects both channels in a different way & it then recreates the stereo stage, as you would hear it in the room. So section 5, is 2 mic's mixed using all sorts of out of phase trickery, as opposed to just running the tracks wide-spread (section 3) or blended to mono (section 4)...

There's lots of ways to mic things & mix them to get great results. It's all about knowing the techniques, room acoustics & playing w/ it...


----------



## minerman

Coronado said:


> Tomorrow night I'm going to swing by Sam Ash and pick up a Senn. e609 mic. From what I've read, it compliments the SM57 well (hoping it has a unique enough sound from the SM57 that it creates a cool tone when blending the two).



The 609 does compliment the '57 pretty good, and it's sound is a little different than the '57. The 609's high end can be a little sizzly at times, but again, it should sound pretty good with the '57...

Gonna mention the Audix i5 again for a pretty good mic in the same price range (about $100 new), I haven't tried it with the 609 yet though. I'll try to post some clips in the next couple days with all 3 of these mics...



*Dogs of Doom*: Sounds good, & is a great example of different mic positioning for different tones...


----------



## Dogs of Doom

minerman said:


> *Dogs of Doom*: Sounds good, & is a great example of different mic positioning for different tones...


thanks... I should have added to listen through headphones too. I do notice that soundcloud really does something to the tone & I'm not sure of the stereo image. I can also upload a flac file, if anyone is interested...

Here done!

It definitely shows it a bit more...


----------



## thunderkyss

Hundreds of different ways you can do it, depending on what you're hearing. I've got my 57 off axis on one speaker, then every now & then I've got a condenser placed 3 to 4 feet back to get add depth & body. I don't so much pan the two sources as much as I balance the levels.


----------



## cragginshred

I just use a 57 with my cab grabber into an ART tube pre and it's great using the HJS Marshall head and Logic pro X


----------



## Sean_McFly_5150

I tend to use the Butch Vig method for finding the right mic placement for guitar tone. I just find the right hiss with just the right amount of top end and low mids presence, test it out, and tweak the placement and angle by millimeters. I also cut holes in the grillcloth to get a few extra bits of top end and low end clarity and dynamic punch, and trust me, it works. These clips right here were done with one SM57 straight on the edge of the center speaker cap, no pedals, no EQ or compression plugins on the guitar track (just reverb, as well as a limiter for loudness on the master track to level the reverb and dry guitar a bit more), and it was done with my Bray 4550 Deluxe Combo linked to my greenback-loaded marshall cab from '72 (well broken in, so I didn't feel bad putting holes in the cloth). I put this all through pro tools 11, btw.



Higher gain:


----------



## Dmann

Just sharing, great review, and a great piece of equipment.

really thinking about picking one up soon


----------



## GuitarMutant

Just saw this thread. To the guys who had a computer that was once mighty and now has issues with recording, there's one thing I do. I'm still running a 6-year-old computer and am able to record 16 simultaneous channels for drums, and easily handle up to 36 tracks in playback with plugins running.

The two parts that are key are the overhead (of the audio interface, the DAW software, and the plugins), and the health of the computer (artifacts, fragmented hard drive, registry errors, etc.)

For plug-ins, I only use native plugins with my DAW software. I had WAVES and Izotope for a while, but they're resource hogs. So I took a tip from my producer buddy and ditched the plugins in favor of spending time getting a good clean signal. If the mic is right and the track is recorded right, very few, if any, plugins are required.

For interface, I use a Tascam 16x08. It's dirt cheap, has plenty of inputs, and runs great.

To keep my PC healthy, I treat it the same way I do the computers I manage at work. I format it, set up all the software, preferences, and performance tweaks. Install all necessary drivers. Check it with a test recording, apply plugins, mix down, and test the final product. Once satisfied that it's rock solid, I image the hard drive to an external USB drive. Now, every time I begin a major session, I simply re-image the computer and it's back to the day I set it up. Clean, fast, and able to run without issue. It only takes 20 minutes, and saves me countless hours of hair pulling.

There's some decent imaging software out there for free. I opted to purchase Active Disk Image myself, as the interface is easy and is fast. 

Seriously - life is SO much better when you use a brand new computer every time you have a big session.


----------



## Coronado

As much as I'm always mucking around with my mic, this is a pretty dang cool piece of gear!!!


----------



## RickyLee

Figured I would post here and see if any of you could help me on this one. I am playing around with Sony Music Studio 8 on my Windows 8 laptop. I am new to this so bear with me. Plugging my guitar in using a M Audio MobilePre USB interface. This program came with Studio Devil British Valve amp simulator.

I figured out how to record a guitar track. But while it is monitoring and while recording I am only hearing the clean guitar signal in my headphones which are plugged into the headphone jack on the interface. When I play back what I recorded I then hear the amp simulator or FX that I assigned on the track. Just can't hear the FX while i am actually playing live.

And the bigger problem this is causing is I am mainly just trying to play my guitar into the PC and play along with MP3's for practice. I can load the MP3 song I want into the software with no issues. But just can't hear my guitar signal with the amp simulator until it is done recording.


----------



## blues_n_cues

you have to select "monitor" for that track in the DAW.


----------



## bulldozer1984

blues_n_cues said:


> you have to select "monitor" for that track in the DAW.



Something else is happening here because all DAWS and INTERFACES i have used have never allowed me to hear the untreated signal without having accidently switched to direct monitoring on the interface itself. On my setup, if monitor is not selected in the DAW then I hear nothing.


----------



## blues_n_cues

bulldozer1984 said:


> Something else is happening here because all DAWS and INTERFACES i have used have never allowed me to hear the untreated signal without having accidently switched to direct monitoring on the interface itself. On my setup, if monitor is not selected in the DAW then I hear nothing.



on mine you select MONITOR in Mixcraft (DAW) but I also have to have the input slider down in the interface's GUI or I hear the untreated (raw) signal.

I'm still trying to figure out what DAW he's using,a search says Sony Music Studio 8 = ACID.


----------



## RickyLee

Yes, this is Sony Music Studio 8. And so far, there is no "monitor" function that I can find. I was googling it last night and read some other users gripes about version 7 having a monitor function and version 8 does not. 

I am getting ready to play around with it here, but starting to wonder if I am spinning my wheels with this program. It was given to me, so no big deal.

I just remembered that I might have a 10 year old version of Pro Tools here somewhere. Would that be the better way to go?


----------



## ricksteruk

I've just downloaded Reaper for my daughters PC.
http://www.reaper.fm/index.php
It's not a free DAW any more - you get 60 days free trial - after that it's a mere $60, which for what you get is pretty amazing.
I've figured it out myself and shown her how to use it in about two hours from scratch.
Might be worth a try.. you can definitely do monitoring of inputs on that - and load in whatever plug ins you want. I downloaded a good batch of free amp sims and other plug ing for her too.


----------



## blues_n_cues

RickyLee said:


> Yes, this is Sony Music Studio 8. And so far, there is no "monitor" function that I can find. I was googling it last night and read some other users gripes about version 7 having a monitor function and version 8 does not.
> 
> I am getting ready to play around with it here, but starting to wonder if I am spinning my wheels with this program. It was given to me, so no big deal.
> 
> I just remembered that I might have a 10 year old version of Pro Tools here somewhere. Would that be the better way to go?



are you using ASIO and have the audio interface selected as the playback device?
I looked @ the manual & didn't find a monitor button but maybe it's automatic. do you hear the effects or whatever when the track is armed? on most DAWs you can't monitor unless the track is armed for recording.

the manual-
http://dspcdn.sonycreativesoftware.com/manuals/musicstudio80_qsg_enu.pdf

http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/showmessage.asp?messageid=937854
"Look in the help file for "*Record input monitoring*". That's what will solve that problem. You enable it on the track you are about to record."

http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/showmessage.asp?messageid=688997

and yes,ProTools would be "better" if you can find it & it works on your system.


----------



## S.A.T.O.

This is a great thread, I've been reading through it getting some great ideas. I'm just jumping into home recording. I've recently picked up a Tascam DP-24sd to record on, a pair or JBL 3 series monitors and a Boss GT-001 effects processor. I already had a BossDR-880 drum machine and I have Jam Up Pro and Bias on my iPad. The drum machine is ok, I find it limiting at times. Do most of you guys use drum machines or programs, or do you use the real thing?


----------



## blues_n_cues

S.A.T.O. said:


> The drum machine is ok, I find it limiting at times. Do most of you guys use drum machines or programs, or do you use the real thing?



I use a few different drum vst's and bang it out on an e-kit (used as triggers) and/or finish & edit w/ a usb/midi keyboard controller.


----------



## RickyLee

blues_n_cues said:


> are you using ASIO and have the audio interface selected as the playback device?
> I looked @ the manual & didn't find a monitor button but maybe it's automatic. do you hear the effects or whatever when the track is armed? on most DAWs you can't monitor unless the track is armed for recording.
> 
> the manual-
> http://dspcdn.sonycreativesoftware.com/manuals/musicstudio80_qsg_enu.pdf
> 
> http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/showmessage.asp?messageid=937854
> "Look in the help file for "*Record input monitoring*". That's what will solve that problem. You enable it on the track you are about to record."
> 
> http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/showmessage.asp?messageid=688997
> 
> and yes,ProTools would be "better" if you can find it & it works on your system.



Yes, using ASIO and interface selected as playback device. I even went back and forth trying different changes and settings and still no monitoring of the signal with effects/amp sim. while recording. 

I downloaded a trial version of Reaper and had a minor breakthrough last night. It has a "monitor" function and that allowed the effected signal through after arming the track. BUT, it almost a full second of delay behind AND I still heard the dry raw signal on the left side in non delayed time. Reaper has quite a few settings to tinker with, so hopefully I can figure this out.


----------



## blues_n_cues

RickyLee said:


> Yes, using ASIO and interface selected as playback device. I even went back and forth trying different changes and settings and still no monitoring of the signal with effects/amp sim. while recording.
> 
> I downloaded a trial version of Reaper and had a minor breakthrough last night. It has a "monitor" function and that allowed the effected signal through after arming the track. BUT, it almost a full second of delay behind AND I still heard the dry raw signal on the left side in non delayed time. Reaper has quite a few settings to tinker with, so hopefully I can figure this out.



so then you have major latency.....that could be the settings or the comp itself ( wouldn't know w/out specs.
on my system if you have native (the interface drivers) & ASIO4ALL it creates all kinds of conflicts.

try this- go here & you can try it free for 2-3 weeks
http://www.acoustica.com/mixcraft/download.php
if you like it buy it,if you don't - don't, but it's the easiest program w/ the most "goodies" in the world and for around $80 it's the best value.
arm a track,select monitor, pick your fx, then see what it sounds like.

if that one doesn't work then you have something hardwired wrong in your system but I could still help you.lol


----------



## ricksteruk

It's crazy that computers can still give such crappy latency when an iPad can manage it ok!!!

My wife just bought one of those minijack-jack Guitar link cables so she can plug her Electric into her iPad and rock out on Garageband and it works a treat!

I suppose an iPad costs as much or more than some PCs though so I guess it's not that surprising that it works better.


----------



## RickyLee

blues_n_cues said:


> so then you have major latency.....that could be the settings or the comp itself ( wouldn't know w/out specs.
> on my system if you have native (the interface drivers) & ASIO4ALL it creates all kinds of conflicts.
> 
> try this- go here & you can try it free for 2-3 weeks
> http://www.acoustica.com/mixcraft/download.php
> if you like it buy it,if you don't - don't, but it's the easiest program w/ the most "goodies" in the world and for around $80 it's the best value.
> arm a track,select monitor, pick your fx, then see what it sounds like.
> 
> if that one doesn't work then you have something hardwired wrong in your system but I could still help you.lol



Do you have any experience with Reaper? I have the free version of that and so far is working fine. I have not checked out that Mixcraft just yet, but will keep that in my back pocket for now.

I was playing around with the free version of Bias (thanks Dozer!) last night and I have to say I am quite impressed so far. The tone is on par with Guitar Rig 5. I am getting ready to try running the Bias amp simulator through the Reaper recording program here shortly.

Only bad thing I noticed with Bias amp simulator is that it cuts out every 15 minutes or so. I lose my simulated tone and it goes to the dry direct signal for a few seconds then comes back to normal. Strange. Unless that is because i am using the Demo version? I might end up trying Mixcraft sooner than later.


----------



## 12barjunkie

RickyLee said:


> Only bad thing I noticed with Bias amp simulator is that it cuts out every 15 minutes or so. I lose my simulated tone and it goes to the dry direct signal for a few seconds then comes back to normal. Strange. Unless that is because i am using the Demo version? I might end up trying Mixcraft sooner than later.



Yes, it's because you're using the demo version. I've heard nothing but good things about bias. Hope to try it soon


----------



## bulldozer1984

This is great too. But you need an ilok. http://www.scuffhamamps.com/product/s-gear


----------



## RickyLee

Well. here is something I just threw together. A drum loop then just played a rhythm part that came to me then a quick lead track.

This is using Bias amp simulator and Reaper DAW. The mixdown and finalizing was not too hard at all. I think I can get the hang of this.



http://www.soundclick.com/player/single_player.cfm?songid=13359058&q=hi


----------



## blues_n_cues

RickyLee said:


> Do you have any experience with Reaper? I have the free version of that and so far is working fine. I have not checked out that Mixcraft just yet, but will keep that in my back pocket for now.


I have Reaper but haven't used it in a long time. for me Mixcraft is better because of all the extra instruments & fx.now I'm using Mixcraft 7 Pro Studio & it has Mastering tools & even more fx.


----------



## RickyLee

Something that is baffling me a bit about this computer based DAW is the recorded guitar tracks and the guitar amp simulators. I was figuring that when I recorded my tracks and was running the amp simulator, that is the exact sound I was recording down on the track itself. But I noticed that the track is just my raw guitar signal coming from the interface and that the FX or amp simulator has to be on while I finalize or mix down. Is this correct? Seems odd to me, but I can see a use for it if that is how you wanted to actually do it. Is there a way to record the track permanently with the FX you chose while tracking? I would rather have that be an option.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

yes, it is a form of re-amping, which is good on every level. That way, if you decide that you could have done a better sound, or didn't like the sound to begin w/, you have the chance to redo it, but you have the performance recorded. You can even run the unaffected track, back into one of your amplifiers & dial it in for the mix & record it, or track it during mixdown...


----------



## ricksteruk

Made a recording and video yesterday and today - used Behringer XR18 to capture the audio into Logic, and just an old iPad for the video so it's a little grainy.

I used Logic to mix the audio and then Reaper to edit the video... Imported the mixed audio into Reaper and assembled it in there. I probably should have just used Reaper for the whole job!!!



I'm on the left playing my old Harmony Meteor guitar and my U-Bass. Wifey is on perc.

I'm quite pleased with it - even if it's not Rock and Roll


----------



## RickyLee

ricksteruk said:


> Made a recording and video yesterday and today - used Behringer XR18 to capture the audio into Logic, and just an old iPad for the video so it's a little grainy.
> 
> I used Logic to mix the audio and then Reaper to edit the video... Imported the mixed audio into Reaper and assembled it in there. I probably should have just used Reaper for the whole job!!!
> 
> 
> 
> I'm on the left playing my old Harmony Meteor guitar and my U-Bass. Wifey is on perc.
> 
> I'm quite pleased with it - even if it's not Rock and Roll




That was awesome. You all look good on camera as well. I can't stand myself on video as I keep noticing my nose that was wacked pretty good from a car accident many years ago. LOL

You are a lucky man to have your Gal playing music with you.


----------



## ricksteruk

RickyLee said:


> That was awesome. You all look good on camera as well. I can't stand myself on video as I keep noticing my nose that was wacked pretty good from a car accident many years ago. LOL
> 
> You are a lucky man to have your Gal playing music with you.



Thanks Ricky! Yeah it is great to be able to play music with wifey (apart from when we have musical differences.. lol!)

I posted the video on this thread just to say how impressed I am with Reaper (sorry if I sound like a salesman!) - frankly I am amazed at how versatile it is and quite capable of making a basic music video as well as doing the multitrack audio - for a mere $60

The video and audio is just a live take of a rehearsal in my front room.. There's just one iPad for the camera, and the multitrack audio. I used Reaper to zoom into the video in places so it looks like it switches cameras... Clever! All the video FX are done in there too of course. It's not perfect and it can be a bit fiddly to do some video FX - Final Cut is better but that costs way more.

I need to buy a DSLR camera so that the video quality will be up to professional standard to match the audio in future.


----------



## RickyLee

ricksteruk said:


> Thanks Ricky! Yeah it is great to be able to play music with wifey (apart from when we have musical differences.. lol!)
> 
> I posted the video on this thread just to say how impressed I am with Reaper (sorry if I sound like a salesman!) - frankly I am amazed at how versatile it is and quite capable of making a basic music video as well as doing the multitrack audio - for a mere $60
> 
> The video and audio is just a live take of a rehearsal in my front room.. There's just one iPad for the camera, and the multitrack audio. I used Reaper to zoom into the video in places so it looks like it switches cameras... Clever! All the video FX are done in there too of course. It's not perfect and it can be a bit fiddly to do some video FX - Final Cut is better but that costs way more.
> 
> I need to buy a DSLR camera so that the video quality will be up to professional standard to match the audio in future.



I will be making a decision in the near future on buying a DAW program. So is that the professional version of Reaper you paid only $60 for?


----------



## ricksteruk

RickyLee said:


> I will be making a decision in the near future on buying a DAW program. So is that the professional version of Reaper you paid only $60 for?



$60 is the discounted licence for Reaper - for home use, or for commercial business use under $20k pa earnings. If you earn more than $20k pa from music production the full licence is $225.

I've not actually bought the licence yet as I only started evaluating it about 2 weeks ago, but I will be - even just for the video is worth it IMO. The trial version is full featured, it does the same things as the paid version.


----------



## RickyLee

ricksteruk said:


> $60 is the discounted licence for Reaper - for home use, or for commercial business use under $20k pa earnings. If you earn more than $20k pa from music production the full licence is $225.
> 
> I've not actually bought the licence yet as I only started evaluating it about 2 weeks ago, but I will be - even just for the video is worth it IMO. The trial version is full featured, it does the same things as the paid version.



There's only one version of reaper, correct? As in, the trial I am running will do video as well?


----------



## ricksteruk

Yeah that's right. You just need to drag a video onto a track in the main arrange window and you can start editing video. Some things are a little fiddly to do - crossfading is a bit of a pain to be honest.. but at least it's possible.

Watch the Reaper tutorial video to learn how to do it - it's 22 mins long and that was all I needed to make that video. The Reaper web site has a LOT of videos showing you how to do pretty much anything 
http://www.reaper.fm/videos.php#QHcjUEOfAA0


----------



## chadjwil

So can somebody give me an explanation of why I would want a mixing board in the loop of my DAW? I Use Studio1, mostly single tracking, almost 100% guitar and vocals, both direct and clean. I don't have any intention of re-amping, but that might just be because I don't fully understand it's usefulness. Please educate a brother.


----------



## ricksteruk

Hmm why use a mixing board?

I would say the main reason is so you can easily set up monitor mixes for live performers without getting any nasty latency from the whole AD/DA conversion and computer processing.

If you get a mixer with a built in reverb then you can send that to the vocal monitor mix (which helps vocalists pitch).

The other reason is that mixers can be useful for selecting between different monitor speakers, nearfields, mid fields etc...

Some audio interfaces (like the MOTU stuff) has built in hardware mixer with reverb and fx so you can set up a monitor mix as I described above from your computer without troubling your DAW and without Latency.


----------



## johnfv

Slow progress: this is a live in the garage recording with overdubs (vocals, some guitar). I probably have posted a version before, I think I may be getting close to finished finally  Recorded and mixed "in the box" with a Focusrite interface
http://johnviehweg.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/GoodDay16-05-04_mix1.mp3


----------



## Frodebro

johnfv said:


> Slow progress: this is a live in the garage recording with overdubs (vocals, some guitar). I probably have posted a version before, I think I may be getting close to finished finally  Recorded and mixed "in the box" with a Focusrite interface
> http://johnviehweg.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/GoodDay16-05-04_mix1.mp3



Nice! That song wouldn't be out of place at all on The Who's _Tommy_. The arrangement is even stylistically in the same vein.


----------



## johnfv

Frodebro said:


> Nice! That song wouldn't be out of place at all on The Who's _Tommy_. The arrangement is even stylistically in the same vein.


Wow, that's a hell of a compliment. I had not thought about the resemblance being so direct but I see it now; certainly classic Who is a big influence. Thanks!


----------



## Frodebro

johnfv said:


> Wow, that's a hell of a compliment. I had not thought about the resemblance being so direct but I see it now; certainly classic Who is a big influence. Thanks!



The funny thing is that it doesn't sound like you were trying to deliberately copy them in any way, but the influence does come through in the arrangement. And Townshend's arrangements were great.


----------



## minerman

After a few painful days of not being able to record, I've got a new pc on the way, it'll be here sometime tomorrow. I'm actually stoked as hell because it's basically the machine I wanted 6 years ago, but settled for something else because of cost. It should be able to handle about anything I throw at it, the only thing I dread is re-installing all of my software, but that's life...

Specs for the new pc:

Intel i7-4790
16gb ram
2 tb 7200 rpm hdd (OS & other programs)
1 tb 7200 rpm hdd (dedicated audio drive)

I also got an enclosure with usb 3.0 to transfer my files from my old hdd's that were in the pc that died (as long as the hdd's haven't been damaged.....hopefully they're ok)...

Pretty excited to say the least...


----------



## minerman

New computer just got here, I'm actually using it to post this....now to start installing the 1,000,000 software programs to get my daw running....







So far, so good, seems like a zippy machine, but won't be able to tell until I test it with one of my projects....


----------



## blues_n_cues

minerman said:


> New computer just got here, ....now to start installing the 1,000,000 software programs to get my daw running....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....


it's going to be a long wkend.....lol


----------



## Dogs of Doom

minerman said:


> New computer just got here, I'm actually using it to post this....now to start installing the 1,000,000 software programs to get my daw running....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So far, so good, seems like a zippy machine, but won't be able to tell until I test it with one of my projects....





blues_n_cues said:


> it's going to be a long wkend.....lol


good time to streamline...

A while back, I lost my main hard drive & had to start all over. Since my last purchase, I have been using Adobe Audition, since before it bought out Cool Edit Pro. When I was using AA, they had it so that at any time, you could download & install the version you bought & they had your serial #'s all listed on your account, so all you had to do was download, copy your serials, add your email, etc. Well, in the meantime, they went to "the cloud" based system, so now, you do not own a copy, but using their product is a perpetual subscription. In that, they no longer support the hard copy versions of old, so no more download. 

So, I found the last version that was not a cloud version. The version is CC, but not cloud enabled, nor upgradeable. The problem? It didn't support any of my 16 bit plugins that I bought over the years. So, now, I had to decide what I really needed & what I could live without. For the most part, many of the plugins I had were just noise. Eating up resources as every time you fire up the DAW, all those plugins have to load. There were some cool ones, but, looking things up, I don't think the cost is worth what I was getting out of them to re-up. Plus, I haven't been recording much lately anyway.


----------



## minerman

Dogs of Doom said:


> good time to streamline...


Already ahead of ya man, first thing I did was make a backup disc of my OS (W7...I didn't want W10 until I have to use it), then started installing "bare bones" software for my setup. I've got it all installed & running, the thing that took the longest was my drum vsti discs, mostly Toontrack. Superior alone (just the installer & stock kit) is a 5-dvd set, plus all the others. But it really didn't take as long as I thought it would. And I didn't install a lot of plug-ins I had on the previous machine, so it's good...

I can tell quite a difference between this i7 & the AMD Phenom II x4 810 I had, but the new machine has 16gb ram, where the old one had only 8. That might be the difference between 'em...This is my first Intel machine too, I've always had to compromise because of the price difference (IE: the AMD that just died was about $1000 new, this new Intel with an extra 1tb hdd & external case with usb 3.0 was about $800 shipped)...

So far, I like it, a lot, & I'm very happy with my new toys...


----------



## minerman

I can highly recommend an Intel machine if you can afford it guys. The AMD quad-core I had was pretty good, but it just can't hold a light to the Intel i7-4790 at all. I'm sure the 16gb of ram (which is twice as much as the AMD pc had) helps a lot too, but this thing smokes!!! I opened a project that ran about 40-50% CPU on the AMD, & on the new Intel, it barely goes above 5%, which is just astonishing to me!!! 

Something else I highly recommend is an external case for hard drives. Simply stick one of your hdd's in it, hook up the power, USB 3.0, & away you go. I've copied projects that were over 8gb in size in just a couple of minutes. Highly recommended...

Here's a link:
*Mediasonic ProBox K32-SU3 3.5" SATA Hard Drive Enclosure*


Using this little toy, I've also found my audio hdd from my old pc was dying, as it makes all kinds of strange noises when it's in use. Not sure there's anything I can do for it, but I do have everything I wanted to save copied over to another drive...

Pretty damn happy with my new pc so far!!!


----------



## Dogs of Doom

I personally recommend SSD drives w/ SATA3. 

The performance is really a no brainer for me. The bad rap that SSD drives get is that they "don't last as long" as HDD, but, the expected life of an SSD drive is about 5 years. I think SSD drives, you're lucky to get 5 years, so it's almost a wash. An SSD is basically like the CF or SD card you put in your camera.


----------



## DirtySteve

Hey guys, are any of these monitors worth a crap? I only have limited funds for this so I need to keep it under $200 and I don't want to wait to order something online. I'm going to set up my interface this long weekend and play with it.

http://www.guitarcenter.com/Studio-...profileCountryCode=US&profileCurrencyCode=USD


----------



## Ghostman

I love the sound of the JBL's and the Yamaha's.


----------



## PU239

DirtySteve said:


> Hey guys, are any of these monitors worth a crap? I only have limited funds for this so I need to keep it under $200 and I don't want to wait to order something online. I'm going to set up my interface this long weekend and play with it.
> 
> http://www.guitarcenter.com/Studio-...profileCountryCode=US&profileCurrencyCode=USD



Of those in that link (assuming you want to be under $500 a pair) the Tannoy 502's are going to be the most accurate for the money. I have to LMAO when guys spend so much on recording gear only to mix on shit monitors. Getting good monitors is only half the battle, your room and where you place them matter equally to get a good mix. For Professional recordings your AD converter and your studio monitors is where you need to spend your money.


----------



## DirtySteve

Well, I did say I was trying to keep it under $200 if possible. I'm just trying to get some decent recording of my amp to post and just learn some basics at this point. I'm certainly not trying to build a studio, I'm just testing the water so to speak and see if I can figure this out.

Right or wrong, I got these...http://www.guitarcenter.com/M-Audio/AV42-Studio-Monitor-Pair.gc and this... http://www.guitarcenter.com/Electro-Voice/CO4-Cobalt-Dynamic-Mic.gc on sale for $40. Several guys that were there swore it's a better mic than the SM57 that I went in for. When the sales guy started his spiel about a better mic I was sure he was going to suggest something more expensive, but to my surprise he suggested this one and another sales guy and 2 customers backed him up so I went for it. It's definitely a more solid build than the SM57.

$211.00 (and some change) out the door. I'm happy about that for sure.


----------



## PU239

Those will be fine Steve. If you put the recording in your car or on disk and don't like the mix just redo it. 

Be careful now, once you get hooked on how fun recording is there is no end to the damage to your wallet.


----------



## DirtySteve

Btw, I have a Presonus AudioBox that I bought a couple of years ago, but never got the mic and monitors. I do have a good set of headphones, but HPs make my ears ring really bad so I wanted the monitors. I have Reaper downloaded also. Back then a couple of guys were trying to help me understand how to use it, but my heart wasn't in it at the time (as much as I wanted it to be) and I hope those guys understand. I don't know if I'm going to remember what they told me back then so I may have some questions coming soon.


----------



## blues_n_cues

DirtySteve said:


> Well, I did say I was trying to keep it under $200 if possible. I'm just trying to get some decent recording of my amp to post and just learn some basics at this point. I'm certainly not trying to build a studio, I'm just testing the water so to speak and see if I can figure this out.
> 
> Right or wrong, I got these...http://www.guitarcenter.com/M-Audio/AV42-Studio-Monitor-Pair.gc
> 
> $211.00 (and some change) out the door. I'm happy about that for sure.



not bad but 4" might leave you a bit light & overcompensating the bass in the mix.
just keep making mixes & referencing in the vehicle or wherever. no matter the monitors they all take some getting used to.


----------



## Ghostman

I love hearing the "listen to it in your car" bit of advice. 10 years ago, the norm was that car systems were crap and you should never reference a recording through car speakers. Funny thing is, most music is listened to in the car.


----------



## DirtySteve

I saw a documentary with Dwight Yokum just recently where he talked about that. Every album gets checked driving around in his vette before he gives the final go ahead. I never thought about that before. 

These monitors have way more bass in my apartment than they did in the store. So much so that I can't listen to music thru them without bugging the neighbors even at very low volume. This could be a problem.


----------



## blues_n_cues

Ghostman said:


> I love hearing the "listen to it in your car" bit of advice. 10 years ago, the norm was that car systems were crap and you should never reference a recording through car speakers. Funny thing is, most music is listened to in the car.



we've always done it like that or just used a cheap boombox outside.
car stereos have been great since I was in high school. Kenwood/Pioneer/JBL,etc.
my current vehicle has an 8 speaker BOSE system & I usually use a pretty flat (talk radio) EQ setting,then the custom rock slight "V" EQ setting.


----------



## DirtySteve

I don't even know if I'm going to be able to do this it's way over my head. I hooked everything up today and have no clue how to even begin. I have reaper downloaded, but I get a message saying I have to purchase a key and it's going to disable if I don't. I had a bud walk me thru downloading it before, but it was so long ago I can't remember what I'm supposed to do. This is like trying to learn chinese on my own. I have no clue where to start.

I should just return this shit and buy a quality hand held tascam or something. I can probably handle that.


----------



## minerman

Steve, watch the reaper nag screen at the bottom right corner, it'll count down from 5 to 1, then you can use it forever. You just have to wait 5 seconds before it'll fire up if you haven't paid for it. They (Reaper) use the honor system, if it bugs you enough, you'll pay for it. If it doesn't, you can use it forever dude....

You can do this, just take your time, & don't be afraid to ask questions....Read all you can about it, & youtube is your friend too dude....you can do this...


----------



## DirtySteve

Thanks brother, I feel bad that I didn't take more notes when you were trying to help me before. I'll give it another shot today, I got really frustrated yesterday.


----------



## blues_n_cues

DirtySteve said:


> I don't even know if I'm going to be able to do this it's way over my head. I hooked everything up today and have no clue how to even begin. I have reaper downloaded, but I get a message saying I have to purchase a key and it's going to disable if I don't. I had a bud walk me thru downloading it before, but it was so long ago I can't remember what I'm supposed to do. This is like trying to learn chinese on my own. I have no clue where to start.
> 
> I should just return this shit and buy a quality hand held tascam or something. I can probably handle that.



...what minerman said about the nag screen & also,a preloaded "skin" might help instead of having to build a template for every new project-
http://stash.reaper.fm/tag/Themes

http://forum.cockos.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26


----------



## 4Horseman

Ah yes, the joys of recording. I spent hours trying to record a "classical style" guitar piece yesterday and must have erased 30 takes. I might just need to copy and loop the good parts. I'm finding recording finger picking parts is not so forgiving, or I just suck.


----------



## minerman

DirtySteve said:


> Thanks brother, I feel bad that I didn't take more notes when you were trying to help me before. I'll give it another shot today, I got really frustrated yesterday.



Steve dude, don't worry about it. At the time, you just wasn't ready to jump in...Try not to get frustrated either man, I know it can be though...There's lots of help here & other places if you get stuck...

It's really not that hard, it's just a lot of information to retain/remember, but once you've done it a few times, it'll just come to you naturally....Hang in there man!!!


----------



## DirtySteve

I wasn't into it today, had too much going on. I'll try again tomorrow, and I'll try not to be myself and think so much...I'll just jump in and hit that record button and see what happens.


----------



## Dmann

I found this helpful


----------



## Dmann

DirtySteve said:


> I wasn't into it today, had too much going on. I'll try again tomorrow, and I'll try not to be myself and think so much...I'll just jump in and hit that record button and see what happens.



The biggest thing to learn is it just takes time and patience man. Don't be discouraged. Thanks to this wonderful tech age we have an abundance of free resources but it takes a lot time to absorb and a lot of trial and error.


----------



## ricksteruk

DirtySteve said:


> I wasn't into it today, had too much going on. I'll try again tomorrow, and I'll try not to be myself and think so much...I'll just jump in and hit that record button and see what happens.



Don't give up! And don't try to take it all in at once. These DAWs are enormous in their feature set.

Just start off learning how to plug it all in, turn the thing on, set up a track, put it into record mode and get your ideas down. And be able to hear back what you've done. Once you've got that all else can follow in time...


----------



## Coronado

I hear you brother Steve. Some days it just comes to ya, and some days it feels like nothing feels/sounds right. oftenI will come up with some chords that I like and record them on my phone. This may sound kind of goofy, but on my drive into work, I'll often listen to what I've recorded and see if anything sticks with me. Kind of helps me find what I really like and what feels just meh.


----------



## Coronado

Any Studio One users? Right now they chopped the price for the 3.0 upgrade. I made the jump today from Producer to Pro 3 for only $150 (reg I think it was like $250 or $300 for the upgrade). Currently about to finally download a song to SoundCloud and post my first song (never shared anything before, so it'll be a first for me).


----------



## Frodebro

I'm in the process of a ground-up rebuilding of a new recording rig. I've been using a 2011 Mac Mini Server with a Focusrite Saffire Pro 40 interface and a couple of external hard drives (along with the dual internal drives in the Mini). It has done a great job for me, and can handle 60 tracks (with 50 of them software instruments) and a bunch of plug-ins without breaking a sweat. It was intended to be my long-term recording rig (I don't use it for anything else), but Apple decided to cease support of Firewire as of OS X El Capitain. This wasn't a big deal initially, I just stopped updating the OS and everything was fine. But a while back things started getting a bit glitchy, particularly with the Focusrite dropping connection more and more frequently. Booting up was taking longer and longer too, as well as launching all the various software.

So I started reviewing my options, and came to the conclusion that it was time to start from scratch, using all of the knowledge I have acquired through trial-and-error over the last decade or so to put together something that was best suited to my current needs. The biggest thing was a bit more portability-the old rig was pretty much stationary with all of the external devices hanging off of it (including a pair of 24" monitors). 

So I just picked up a new 15" MacBook Pro (2.5GHz I7 quad-core with hyper threading, 16GB RAM, and a 512GB solid state drive). This thing doesn't spec out on paper much higher than the Mini, but with the newer CPU and SS drive it's a freaking rocket in comparison.

For an interface, I opted for a UA Apollo Duo. It only has two mic/line inputs compared to the eight on the Focusrite, but my outboard gear has been greatly streamlined since I bought a Kemper, so I don't need the capacity anymore. Plus, the Apollo takes quite a bit of the load off of the host computer by handling much of the effects plug-in processing.

The next step is going to be external hard drives. I'm getting by right now with a Thunderbolt to Firewire adaptor to daisy-chain my old external drives, but it's still a bit more cumbersome than I want. The game plan is to put four drives in a single Thunderbolt case (I'm still researching my options here) so that I have my software instrument library (which is quite extensive at this point and currently occupies two drives), my audio drive, and a backup drive all in one case with one cable and one power lead.

Stay tuned...


----------



## Frodebro

Update: After further research, I'm most likely going to pick up the Vienna Ensemble Pro software, which will enable me to slave my Mini Server to the Macbook and run all of my software instruments off of its internal drives (and processor). This frees up the CPU in the Macbook to handle just the OS and Daw software.


----------



## Australian

Frodebro said:


> *For an interface, I opted for a UA Apollo Duo.* It only has two mic/line inputs compared to the eight on the Focusrite, but my outboard gear has been greatly streamlined since I bought a Kemper, so I don't need the capacity anymore. Plus, the Apollo takes quite a bit of the load off of the host computer by handling much of the effects plug-in processing.




Good choice. You're going to love the way this allows you to work.


----------



## johnfv

Frodebro said:


> ...Focusrite Saffire Pro 40 interface...For an interface, I opted for a UA Apollo Duo...The game plan is to put four drives in a single Thunderbolt case...


I'm a PC guy so take my comments here with a grain of salt 
The Saffire Pro 40 has been rock solid for me, I actually have a pair of them and an Octopre Plus for a total of 24 simultaneous channels. 
UA makes great stuff, I've not used one but that should be a great interface
Depending on your needs you might consider a NAS enclosure? I've had very good results with running NAS on gigabit network and I can configure mirrored or RAID 5 for fault tolerance.


----------



## Frodebro

johnfv said:


> I'm a PC guy so take my comments here with a grain of salt
> The Saffire Pro 40 has been rock solid for me, I actually have a pair of them and an Octopre Plus for a total of 24 simultaneous channels.
> UA makes great stuff, I've not used one but that should be a great interface
> Depending on your needs you might consider a NAS enclosure? I've had very good results with running NAS on gigabit network and I can configure mirrored or RAID 5 for fault tolerance.



I'm heading in a new direction. Bought Vienna Ensemble Pro 5, and will be running my Mini Server along with the Macbook. I'm going to replace the 500GB 7200RPM drives in the server with 1TB SSDs when funds allow, which will give it a nice kick in the speed department. The software libraries will all be on the Mini's internal drives.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

yeah, I started swapping my hard drives out a couple years ago w/ SSD's. They really make for better performance. Less bottleneck & semi-instant write. I dread using old mechanical drives now.


----------



## tonetrain

I don't know much about recording, but I figured I'd give it a try anyhoo. Does this look workable?


----------



## Coronado

I finally pulled the trigger and picked up the Roland TD11K yesterday. Got it all set up and played around with it for a couple hours yesterday. Now I just need to figure out how to get it all linked up with my Studio One.


----------



## minerman

Coronado said:


> I finally pulled the trigger and picked up the Roland TD11K yesterday. Got it all set up and played around with it for a couple hours yesterday. Now I just need to figure out how to get it all linked up with my Studio One.



Pics or it's a $400 Yamaha kit.....


----------



## Coronado

minerman said:


> Pics or it's a $400 Yamaha kit.....



Still trying to figure out the best positioning for the toms, snare, and high hat, but getting there!


----------



## minerman

Nice kit man, I really wish I'd gotten a better kit myself, but I end up editing the midi anyway (because I suck as a drummer), so I've thrown my little kit in the closet...




It should be fairly simple to get that running with Studio One, my kit was basically plug-n-play in Reaper, no problems with the kit whatsoever, but the drumming is another story....

I thought I gave $400 for this, but it was $500 instead...This is a decent little kit, but none of the pads are dual zone, & the hi-hat only has 2 articulations (open/closed), so it's pretty limited...

I'd thought about upgrading the brain, but I'll probably hold off & try to get a real kit sometime this year...


----------



## Coronado

minerman said:


> Nice kit man, I really wish I'd gotten a better kit myself, but I end up editing the midi anyway (because I suck as a drummer), so I've thrown my little kit in the closet...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It should be fairly simple to get that running with Studio One, my kit was basically plug-n-play in Reaper, no problems with the kit whatsoever, but the drumming is another story....
> 
> I thought I gave $400 for this, but it was $500 instead...This is a decent little kit, but none of the pads are dual zone, & the hi-hat only has 2 articulations (open/closed), so it's pretty limited...
> 
> I'd thought about upgrading the brain, but I'll probably hold off & try to get a real kit sometime this year...



I like your Yamaha, and from the research that I have done, looks like Roland and Yamaha make some great kits. I started off looking at all sorts of sets, and the type/price kept creeping up. I used to play drums on an acoustic set, so I still struggle a bit with how hard I strike the heads, and how close everything seems. With the acoustic set, the toms and everything were larger and more spaced apart, so I find myself trying to play this set like an acoustic set. Its going to take some getting used to. The kick drum keeps sliding all over the place, so I need to find a way to anchor that down. I seem to also whack the heck out of the kick drum, so I need to go easy on things before I start breaking stuff!


----------



## minerman

My little kit doesn't even compare to what you just bought man, seriously...But I knew what I was getting beforehand...I've never really played drums very much, just beat on 'em from time to time at practice back in my gigging days...I'm sure since you do actually play drums it feels strange & will take some time to get used to 'em...

I bet your kit's internal sounds are good, the kit I have pretty much sucks (I knew that too), but I use my kit to trigger vsti's in Reaper, so it doesn't really matter for me, that's the reason I bought 'em, to use with Superior Drummer/Slate/Addictive Drums 2/etc...


----------



## Dmann

I also have the 11k kit, but only the snare is mesh as I felt it not worth the extra moola for mesh Toms.

IMO the internal drums / samples are not all that great.

I bought the kit to record the midi and then I use superior drummer 2 for samples. It's pretty decent but I wish they were 3 zone triggers per instead of 2.


----------



## Coronado

minerman said:


> My little kit doesn't even compare to what you just bought man, seriously...But I knew what I was getting beforehand...I've never really played drums very much, just beat on 'em from time to time at practice back in my gigging days...I'm sure since you do actually play drums it feels strange & will take some time to get used to 'em...
> 
> I bet your kit's internal sounds are good, the kit I have pretty much sucks (I knew that too), but I use my kit to trigger vsti's in Reaper, so it doesn't really matter for me, that's the reason I bought 'em, to use with Superior Drummer/Slate/Addictive Drums 2/etc...



I was thinking of doing the same, so I'm glad to hear that you can input into Superior Drummer! Excellent! Last night I jumped back on the set and gave it another shot. I'm beginning to lighten up my touch a bit. The heads are pretty responsive, so far, not too shabby. Going to keep practicing to get the feel, then eventually re-track my drums for some of the songs I've done in Studio One. Looking forward to playing around with the set in Studio One.


----------



## Coronado

Dmann said:


> I also have the 11k kit, but only the snare is mesh as I felt it not worth the extra moola for mesh Toms.
> 
> IMO the internal drums / samples are not all that great.
> 
> I bought the kit to record the midi and then I use superior drummer 2 for samples. It's pretty decent but I wish they were 3 zone triggers per instead of 2.



I know what you mean on the tom heads - I went back and forth. Actually, I had a difficult time deciding between the 11k, the 11KV, and the newer TD 25KV. The 25 comes with the new brain, larger snare, actual high hat stand, and a different rack. When I thought about how I wanted to use them, running them into Studio One and Superior Drummer, I figured the sound would pretty much be the same with all 3 sets. At that point, it was really about which set was most easy for me to get comfortable with (being more used to acoustic drums). The guy at GC gave me a discount on the 11kv ($1340 vs. $1599), so for a few hundred more, I went with the 11KV. Just couldn't justify spending another $700 for the 25KV just to get a different brain (which sounds the same) and a high hat stand (which it doesn't come with). So I'd have to add a high hat stand to the cost. 

I agree, the internal drums are not the greatest, and kind of limited. Looking forward to trying them on EZ/Superior Drummer. I think Studio One 3 Professional has some options as well, so hoping for a little more "real" type of sound.


----------



## Coronado

Dmann said:


> I also have the 11k kit, but only the snare is mesh as I felt it not worth the extra moola for mesh Toms.
> 
> IMO the internal drums / samples are not all that great.
> 
> I bought the kit to record the midi and then I use superior drummer 2 for samples. It's pretty decent but I wish they were 3 zone triggers per instead of 2.



Hey Dmann, please forgive the dumb questions, but I'm looking to run my Roland into StudioOne. Do I run a midi connector from the Roland midi jack to my DAW (PreSonus), or do I run from the Roland USB straight to the computer? I see it came with a disk that I need to run in my computer. I know I probably need to load those drivers, but not too sure what the correct connectors need to be? I have EZDrummer/Superior Drummer that I run through my StudioOne, which is ultimately what I'm wanting to do, but not too sure on how it all needs to be set up. Do I need to pick up a special midi connector? Sure appreciate the help my friend!


----------



## minerman

Coronado said:


> Hey Dmann, please forgive the dumb questions, but I'm looking to run my Roland into StudioOne. Do I run a midi connector from the Roland midi jack to my DAW (PreSonus), or do I run from the Roland USB straight to the computer? I see it came with a disk that I need to run in my computer. I know I probably need to load those drivers, but not too sure what the correct connectors need to be? I have EZDrummer/Superior Drummer that I run through my StudioOne, which is ultimately what I'm wanting to do, but not too sure on how it all needs to be set up. Do I need to pick up a special midi connector? Sure appreciate the help my friend!



I'm not 100% sure about your Roland kit, but I use a USB cable from my Yamaha brain straight to my computer. Matter of fact, I bought a 16' USB cable so I could put my kit in the corner...

I'd recommend a long USB cable, headphone extension cable, a wireless mouse, & possibly a wireless keyboard to control/start/stop your daw from behind the kit, to keep you from running back/forth if you need to tweak something in the daw...Using the wireless mouse/keyboard, you could stay behind the kit...


----------



## Coronado

minerman said:


> I'm not 100% sure about your Roland kit, but I use a USB cable from my Yamaha brain straight to my computer. Matter of fact, I bought a 16' USB cable so I could put my kit in the corner...
> 
> I'd recommend a long USB cable, headphone extension cable, a wireless mouse, & possibly a wireless keyboard to control/start/stop your daw from behind the kit, to keep you from running back/forth if you need to tweak something in the daw...Using the wireless mouse/keyboard, you could stay behind the kit...



I think you nailed it. I tried running a midi from the Roland to my PreSonus, then USB (how I normally run to my computer and StudioOne) to my computer. That didn't seem to work. I think your way is the correct way, run the USB from the Roland to my computer and bypass the PreSonus. I'll pick up a long USB and I also like your idea of the wireless mouse - great idea! Thanks again Minerman!!


----------



## minerman

No problem man, I've spent countless hours trying to get things to work for me, & it's the least I can do to pass on what I've learned...


----------



## Coronado

minerman said:


> No problem man, I've spent countless hours trying to get things to work for me, & it's the least I can do to pass on what I've learned...



Man aint that the truth! You really do have to play with it until you can finally find the right path and get it to all work! Thanks again!


----------



## Coronado

minerman said:


> No problem man, I've spent countless hours trying to get things to work for me, & it's the least I can do to pass on what I've learned...



Brother, you are a genius! Success! Thanks SO much!!!


----------



## minerman

Coronado said:


> Brother, you are a genius! Success! Thanks SO much!!!



No problem dude...Seems I solve one problem, only to create another one...when I set my kit up, I couldn't see the monitor (it's a little 18 1/5")...I ended up getting a 30" tv, so now I can run 2 monitors with the new pc....


----------



## Coronado

Sennheiser e609 - Any fans of this mic? I use this along with the SM57. I really like how you can hang the e609 over the amp/cab (with my 1960a cab, it lays right in position). The SM57 with a mic stand can get you right where you want to place it, but sometimes it can be a bit of a pain going between different cabs/amps. That e609 is pretty handy!

I have been looking into some of those cab grabbers. Anybody try these yet? I see that some clip on to the edge of a cab, while others kind of extend around the side of the cab. Any preferences?


----------



## Ghostman

Coronado said:


> Sennheiser e609 - Any fans of this mic? I use this along with the SM57. I really like how you can hang the e609 over the amp/cab (with my 1960a cab, it lays right in position). The SM57 with a mic stand can get you right where you want to place it, but sometimes it can be a bit of a pain going between different cabs/amps. That e609 is pretty handy!
> 
> I have been looking into some of those cab grabbers. Anybody try these yet? I see that some clip on to the edge of a cab, while others kind of extend around the side of the cab. Any preferences?



I've been looking at both these options, the e609 and the Cab clip on mic stands. I'd like to get a decent one for my SM57 since I don't move it at all, and the floor stand is kind of a pita, in my setup.


----------



## Coronado

Ghostman said:


> I've been looking at both these options, the e609 and the Cab clip on mic stands. I'd like to get a decent one for my SM57 since I don't move it at all, and the floor stand is kind of a pita, in my setup.



I hear ya on that - the floor stand holds the SM57 well, but its kind of awkward and I'm always knocking into it. The e609 has been really handy - I can just pull it off the cab and then drape it over another amp/cab and its ready to go. The cab grabber idea would be cool I think because you can hopefully just leave it set up where you like it and then pop in the SM57 when your ready, plus its off the ground and away from cables and pedals (and me kicking it...). I see a couple models of grabbers, they both seem to look pretty good.


----------



## Australian

*Did anyone else here jump at the $40 deal on these 4 Waves plugins last week?
Just the L3 Multimaximizer is *$349 and I got the 4 of them for $40. 
They sound good too.


----------



## Coronado

Australian said:


> *Did anyone else here jump at the $40 deal on these 4 Waves plugins last week?
> Just the L3 Multimaximizer is *$349 and I got the 4 of them for $40.
> They sound good too.



Crap - I need to check and see if its still available. I've been looking for some plugins like this. Wow, $40?! That is crazy cheap! 

Thanks for the heads up! Hope they still have it available!


----------



## Australian

Coronado said:


> Crap - I need to check and see if its still available. I've been looking for some plugins like this. Wow, $40?! That is crazy cheap!
> 
> Thanks for the heads up! Hope they still have it available!




Actually I just checked. It was $49 not $40. But still, all 4 plugins would usually total up around $800.

If you're subscribed to receive Waves notifications, you'll get emailed about their weekend deals that they run each week.

Here are some current deals:
http://www.waves.com/specials#sort:...st-view|paging:currentPage=0|paging:number=20


----------



## Coronado

WOW! The Puig Tec EQ (which if I'm not mistaken is the plugin version of the famous Pultec EQ?) is $49!! That was crazy expensive when I looked a while back! EXCELLENT! Thank you!


----------



## Australian

Coronado said:


> WOW! The Puig Tec EQ (which if I'm not mistaken is the plugin version of the famous Pultec EQ?) is $49!! That was crazy expensive when I looked a while back! EXCELLENT! Thank you!




Yep its the Pultec. A must have! I have another version of it and they sound good even if you just have them on the mix buss for color.

But these L3-LL's sound really good. It beats buying an Ozone 7 for $500.


----------



## Coronado

Australian said:


> Yep its the Pultec. A must have! I have another version of it and they sound good even if you just have them on the mix buss for color.



Awesome! That's what the StudioOne Youtube video I was recently watching was talking about. This producer was giving some tips and he was talking about the Pultec (as well as I believe it was the limiter/compressor?) and he mentioned just having them added (without adjusting anything) really helped to bring out some great color! That is really cool.


----------



## Coronado

Any others that you are really liking? Thank you!


----------



## Australian

I usually use Apollo UAD plugins.
But The Waves Maserati and Marroquin bundle is really good for certain things. Like Toms, that you don't want to spend a lot of time on. that you want to bring out a certain sound. They're quick and easy with some of the signature plugins.
I tried the CLA Signature plugins and didn't thing they sounded as good as the Waves Maserati Signature ones.

This is great if you want a good compressor/Limiter. You can download the Junior version for free.
http://klanghelm.com/contents/main.php




MJUC - variable-tube compressor


----------



## Coronado

Excellent! Thank you! Going to check this out now. Definitely going to grab some of these while they are on sale. Some of these prices are just too good to pass up!


----------



## Coronado

I'm sick to my stomach - the wife asked me to go with her family yesterday for a "quick lunch". Ended up being all frickin day. Got in late, didn't order the Pultec. Yesterday, it was $40 bucks. Today, its $299. FUCK. I'm a complete idiot!!!


----------



## Australian

Hopefully it will be on special again soon.

Last year plug-in prices were crazy on Black Friday. If you can wait till then.


----------



## Coronado

Australian said:


> Hopefully it will be on special again soon.
> 
> Last year plug-in prices were crazy on Black Friday. If you can wait till then.



I really hope so - soon as I logged on, I thought oh man, please still be on sale. Saw that $299 and just dropped my head... What a fool I am! 

Thanks again so much for the great tip! I'll be watching for more deals. Looks like they still have several items on sale?


----------



## blues_n_cues

Coronado said:


> WOW! The Puig Tec EQ (which if I'm not mistaken is the plugin version of the famous Pultec EQ?) is $49!! That was crazy expensive when I looked a while back! EXCELLENT! Thank you!


if you're referring to the Pultronic 110P,based off the classic Pultec tube EQ it comes free w/ Mixcraft & I've been using it for years,especially for Bass stuff & final "analog" tone bumps in the Masters.


----------



## Coronado

blues_n_cues said:


> if you're referring to the Pultronic 110P,based off the classic Pultec tube EQ it comes free w/ Mixcraft & I've been using it for years,especially for Bass stuff & final "analog" tone bumps in the Masters.



Oh wow! If I could find if for free, that would be great!! The Puig Tec EQ (which is the plugin version of the Pultec EQ) is $299! Free sounds pretty damn good!


----------



## blues_n_cues

Coronado said:


> Oh wow! If I could find if for free, that would be great!! The Puig Tec EQ (which is the plugin version of the Pultec EQ) is $299! Free sounds pretty damn good!


well, "free" means that you buy Mixcraft's recording DAW,plus you get ALL the extras for free which is worth the money-just the keys & drums are worth it.
http://www.acoustica.com/mixcraft/

you get a whole lot more w/ Pro Studio too.
still,a helluva lot cheaper than $299.
I've been using this one for 10 years & it's EXACTLY the same as the $3000 hardwired outboard unit & even then, the 20+ year old units are more expensive & regarded over the newer units.


----------



## Australian

blues_n_cues said:


> it's EXACTLY the same as the $3000 hardwired outboard unit & even then,


----------



## blues_n_cues

Australian said:


>


cynical Aussie Sumbich,ya know I love ya but.......


----------



## Robert Herndon Project

Grew up with a recording studio in the family. Learned a lot. Mom did studio backing vocals for Buck Owens and Merle Haggard.


----------



## Robert Herndon Project

I put my amp in a soundproof room. Run it almost wide open....record with low mic gain. I found placing the mic in a velour, curved back chair, kind of shaped the sound....cannot get "that tone" unless almost full volume is used...


----------



## Coronado

Robert Herndon Project said:


> Grew up with a recording studio in the family. Learned a lot. Mom did studio backing vocals for Buck Owens and Merle Haggard.



That is awesome... Buck Owens and Merle?! That's pretty damn cool!! 

I would love some to learn more about this stuff. I kind of have this goofy fantasy about visiting an old studio that still uses tape for recording (or new stuff - hell, I'd be happy with either!). I watched this show about Sound City in California - where a lot of the bands like Fleetwood Mac, Tom Petty, Rick Springfield, and TONS of 80's bands, as well as Nirvana did their recordings. They had this old soundboard that has pretty much helped create the sounds for so many bands (Dave Grohl ended up buying it). I'd love to sit down with one of these old school producers/sound guys and listen to the stories and try to learn some new stuff. I'm always watching youtube videos, but it would just be so cool to get a little studio time.


----------



## Robert Herndon Project

Coronado - Buck's studio on Chester Avenue in Bakersfield used to be 3" reel to reel. I was there often in 79-80 when mom was making her country and gospel albums. I used to sit at that huge console with producer Jim Shaw and ask lots of questions. I remember they had a pair of Pioneer TS-6906 6x9 car audio speakers on the console. When I enquired about them, Jim told me he mixed everything to sound good on those speakers. He claimed if it sounded good on 6x9's that it would sound phenomenal on a bigger system.

After Buck passed away, I am told members of Korn bought the place an upgraded it. Mom still has 3" masters in her studio...


----------



## Coronado

Robert Herndon Project said:


> Coronado - Buck's studio on Chester Avenue in Bakersfield used to be 3" reel to reel. I was there often in 79-80 when mom was making her country and gospel albums. I used to sit at that huge console with producer Jim Shaw and ask lots of questions. I remember they had a pair of Pioneer TS-6906 6x9 car audio speakers on the console. When I enquired about them, Jim told me he mixed everything to sound good on those speakers. He claimed if it sounded good on 6x9's that it would sound phenomenal on a bigger system.
> 
> After Buck passed away, I am told members of Korn bought the place an upgraded it. Mom still has 3" masters in her studio...



That is just so cool!! I cant imagine the history that must have been made there... That crazy magic that happens when everything falls into place, and the perfect recording is the result!! It must have been such an experience to be there with your Mom watching music history! 

I found this on the internet: Bucks studio - man, what I would give to have a peek in there!!!


----------



## Robert Herndon Project

When my Mom was recording there in 1979, she needed a drummer and Merle loaned her Bobby Gallardo.


----------



## Robert Herndon Project

If you don't mind some country gospel, you can hear The Buckaroos on these recordings - all done in Buck's studio...some of her straight country songs appear hear also:

https://www.reverbnation.com/nitajohaze


----------



## Robert Herndon Project

Coronado - true story....during the summer 1979 session, we were in the studio after dark and everyone voted for McDonald's. I had a cheap Harmony Les Paul copy and i was just noodling around in the control room, so they asked me to make a run....food for about 10 people.

I grabbed one of the PA speaker carts and pushed it down the road to pick up the order...I have pictures of us all eating in the control room beside that huge console...


----------



## Australian

blues_n_cues said:


> cynical Aussie Sumbich,ya know I love ya but.......





Not cynical. Realistic!.

a beyond 10 yo plugin can't do Pultec. Current Waves are pretty good at it, UAD are probably the best at it. I came through the plugin evolution starting with an atari computer. Its not like amps-"vintage is better".


----------



## Coronado

Robert Herndon Project said:


> If you don't mind some country gospel, you can hear The Buckaroos on these recordings - all done in Buck's studio...some of her straight country songs appear hear also:
> 
> https://www.reverbnation.com/nitajohaze



That is absolutely fantastic!! Just so amazing to have something so wonderful that you will always be able to cherish and pass down! Thank you so much for sharing this!!


----------



## Coronado

Robert Herndon Project said:


> Coronado - true story....during the summer 1997 session, we were in the studio after dark and everyone voted for McDonald's. I had a cheap Harmony Les Paul copy and i was just noodling around in the control room, so they asked me to make a run....food for about 10 people.
> 
> I grabbed one of the PA speaker carts and pushed it down the road to pick up the order...I have pictures of us all eating in the control room beside that huge console...



HA! That's awesome!! It really doesn't get any better than that... What a memory that must have been! So much talent, all pausing to enjoy a Big Mac. Just awesome!


----------



## Robert Herndon Project

I first met Buck at the studio when I was 14. He was a giant. When he shook your hand, it simply vanished. I remember him inviting me to noodle around on his red/white/blue acoustic. That was a pretty cool experience.


----------



## Robert Herndon Project

I asked mom to dig out some photos....will try to post soon.


----------



## Coronado

Robert Herndon Project said:


> I first met Buck at the studio when I was 14. He was a giant. When he shook your hand, it simply vanished. I remember him inviting me to noodle around on his red/white/blue acoustic. That was a pretty cool experience.



You mean, THIS guitar? Holy CRAP!!! You held one of the most famous guitars in history! Growing up, Buck was such a big part of our music, since my Dad and my Grandfather both were big fans. They didn't seem to really get along all that well, perhaps because they were so damn stubborn and similar... But they could both appreciate Buck's music, and they were both generally happy when ol' Buck was playing and singing. Both Buck and Merle. AND your Mom's wonderful voice as well!! We would watch Buck and Roy Clark on Hee Haw. Lost my Dad and Grandfather some years back, so those memories are especially fond ones.


----------



## Coronado

Robert Herndon Project said:


> I asked mom to dig out some photos....will try to post soon.


That would be a real treat my friend - I'd LOVE to see them. Thank you!!!!


----------



## Robert Herndon Project

No problem man. I was a rock n roll fan, but grew up around this music, so I appreciate it.

Buck had several of those guitars at his studio!


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

Gentlemens...

Let's say I am trying to mix a song to sound as close to AC/DC as possible, using You Shook Me as my main inspiration...what reverb/delay settings and any panning etc. for those delays/verbs would you recommend to emulate the rhythm guitars? I realize what we hear may well have been actual room sound from the studio they recorded in but I don't have that luxury so I need to fake it as best I can. Using logic pro x and stock fx. Thanks.


----------



## Coronado

AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing said:


> Gentlemens...
> 
> Let's say I am trying to mix a song to sound as close to AC/DC as possible, using You Shook Me as my main inspiration...what reverb/delay settings and any panning etc. for those delays/verbs would you recommend to emulate the rhythm guitars? I realize what we hear may well have been actual room sound from the studio they recorded in but I don't have that luxury so I need to fake it as best I can. Using logic pro x and stock fx. Thanks.



Hmmm, good question. I have my StudioOne pulled up and ready to go, and my 74' 1987 is mic'd to a V30 and a G12T-75. When I get home today, I'll try using my SG and a LP to record some tracks to give some examples and see how close we can get. There are a handful of different reverb and "roomverb" tools that might help. The roomverb is good for adding that room sound of reverb, so that might be one possible option. I'll try cranking the 1987 with different reverb and delays to see what works, and I'll try recording several different tracks as examples.


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

Thanks. recording is already done so it is what it is, but if i can do something in the mix to get it a little closer thatd be nice. I realize this is the RECORDING thread but I figure most of you are mixing the stuff you record yourselves so...


----------



## Frodebro

AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing said:


> Gentlemens...
> 
> Let's say I am trying to mix a song to sound as close to AC/DC as possible, using You Shook Me as my main inspiration...what reverb/delay settings and any panning etc. for those delays/verbs would you recommend to emulate the rhythm guitars? I realize what we hear may well have been actual room sound from the studio they recorded in but I don't have that luxury so I need to fake it as best I can. Using logic pro x and stock fx. Thanks.



No delay for AC/DC, just some room ambience (reverb). And not a lot, either-just enough to add some "air" to the mix.


----------



## Coronado

I've done a handful of recordings, different guitars, different mics, cabs, etc... Now trying some editing and mixing to see what roomverb can do. So far, from listening to ACDC (Shook Me), doesn't sound like there is a ton of reverb, just a bit. Much like Frodebro has mentioned. Its actually tighter that I would have thought with very little reverb post recording. I'll share what I have once I pick a few of the better tracks.


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

thanks. its not totally dry...i can hear something on the left side when its just the right guitar playing (when the song starts). i hear something that sounds like a slight delay...maybe thats the actual room.


----------



## Robert Herndon Project

During the recording of Back in Black, Engineer Tony Platt recalled, "With AC/DC, it had always been about the riff - and on Back in Black, there would be plenty of them: “Hells Bells,” “Shoot to Thrill,” “You Shook Me” (eventually the band’s first Top 40 hit) and the unrelenting title track featured the dynamic interplay between Angus’ right-channel SG lead and brother Malcolm’s left-channel Gretsch rhythm. From his control-room vantage point, Platt realized the sound he was after was already coming through the monitors; processing and other add-ons would be purposely left off the rhythm tracks. “We all had a good idea of how we wanted it to sound right from the start,” says Platt, “and so our goal was to get it on tape there, rather than leaving it for the final mix. Being restricted to 24 tracks meant that a lot of the decisions would be made early on, which also added to the feeling of immediacy. But most off all, they just played it like it is! There was hardly any patching required - we’d just cut takes until we had a nice balance of perfection and feel.”

As so often happens, on Back in Black the make-up of the studio itself helped determine the recording dynamics. “The set up and approach was quite different from Highway,” notes Platt, who’d come aboard during the mix phase of the previous album. “Highway had been recorded in a very dead studio, so much so that during mixing I’d fed various parts back through the speakers and into the studio, recording the result for extra ambience. So when it came time to do Back in Black, the idea was to get that ambience on tape right from the start. The room at Compass Point was fairly large but had a low-ish ceiling, which concerned me a little as I didn’t want the room to compress the sound. We spent some time choosing the right position for the drums by hitting a snare in various parts of the room. I discovered a ‘sweet spot’ where the snare suddenly sounded bigger, deeper, fuller and most important, snappier. I subsequently discovered that there was a void above this position that was obviously allowing the sound to rise without choking it!”

For Angus’ solo tracks (which were overdubbed), Platt employed two stacks, one in the main room and another in a live chamber at the far end of the building. “We used Angus’s radios to transmit to these amps,” says Platt. “The radios actually proved to be quite an important part of the sound, as they added some mid bite. I used two Neumann U67s on each cabinet, so I could pan the result where I wanted. And absolutely no compression was used at all.”

Pay attention here:

"Mixing for the album took place at Electric Lady Studios in New York shortly after the sessions were completed. “The size of the sound is really a combination of things,” says Platt. “The tuning is good, the arrangements are spacious, the recording isn’t heavily processed, aside from some subtle addition of delays and light reverb just for extra ambience. I remember we also monitored quietly so we could balance carefully.”

Been an AC/DC tone guy for a long time....


----------



## Jakeboy

Great stuff on ACDC!


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

thanks, I think I read some of that previously. sounds like they did use some light delay/verb. I guess if anyone has suggestions on how to FAKE the effect of what they accomplished naturally eith my totally dry recording (reverb/delay types, settings) I'd be appreciative.


----------



## Robert Herndon Project

Most times, we add all the effects during production. I would suggest adding delay in one speaker and reverb in the other....


----------



## blues_n_cues

Robert Herndon Project said:


> Most times, we add all the effects during production. I would suggest adding delay in one speaker and reverb in the other....



I use mine mostly from my rig (very lightly) so,even in the modern DAW world,it's "printed" to the track & I may add more in Post-Production if I feel it needs it.
I've always done it that way & it drove engineers nutz.lol


----------



## Robert Herndon Project

A live recording would use stage effects in most cases. Not much you can do after that!


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

who's "we"? I'd always read that especially with things like reverb and such you were better off adding them in the mix as you could be more precise and undo it if it didn't fit etc. etc. overdrive/distortions, wah, maybe the modulation effects were okay to burn in during recording. At least that's what I feel like I've always heard/read.


----------



## blues_n_cues

AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing said:


> who's "we"? I'd always read that especially with things like reverb and such you were better off adding them in the mix as you could be more precise and undo it if it didn't fit etc. etc. overdrive/distortions, wah, maybe the modulation effects were okay to burn in during recording. At least that's what I feel like I've always heard/read.


this could be true but... if you were working w/ old tape fx.. we...( faded echo) sometimes "printed" tape was better...


----------



## Robert Herndon Project

AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing said:


> who's "we"? I'd always read that especially with things like reverb and such you were better off adding them in the mix as you could be more precise and undo it if it didn't fit etc. etc. overdrive/distortions, wah, maybe the modulation effects were okay to burn in during recording. At least that's what I feel like I've always heard/read.



Right....


----------



## Robert Herndon Project

blues_n_cues said:


> this could be true but... if you were working w/ old tape fx.. we...( faded echo) sometimes "printed" tape was better...



I think mom still has an Echoplex.


----------



## Robert Herndon Project

Mom's studio was where she rehearsed, recorded radio and commercial jingles, and was a studio for hire. It used to be a 3" reel to real and later, a smaller TEAC A1250S 4 track-2 channel 7" reel. 

Now, my oldest son had a dedicated PC set up with Adobe Audition. 

These days Mom is doing cowboy poetry....


----------



## blues_n_cues

Robert Herndon Project said:


> I think mom still has an Echoplex.


EP=1,3 or 4 ?????? world of difference.............yu talk a lot but no proof or pics..........


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

blues_n_cues said:


> this could be true but... if you were working w/ old tape fx.. we...( faded echo) sometimes "printed" tape was better...



Ah gotcha. Old timey tech is not protools/Logic.


----------



## Robert Herndon Project

blues_n_cues said:


> EP=1,3 or 4 ?????? world of difference.............yu talk a lot but no proof or pics..........




LOL! Kind of like the Gibson Les Paul everyone said Mom probably didn't have....until I had her send me some pics....or the Gibson SG I probably didn't buy this week... 

I haven't been back to record in Mom's studio in a few years - I moved to Los Angeles in 2011. But, anyways, It looks kind of like an old record player. The top lifts up. That's all I can really tell you about it. 

A couple of years ago, my Mom had a health scare when her potassium levels dropped and she became very ill. After she started getting better, my oldest son re-vamped the studio and shelved the old Teac tape and some of the other old equipment (some of it surplus stuff from Buck's Chester Avenue Studios) and installed a dedicated PC with Adobe Audition and a breakout box that allows multiple microphones to run into the PC.

My son has also converted some of Mom's 1978-1979 Buck Owens' Sessions from tape onto disc so they could be posted on her website, which includes some of her songs recorded in her studio on the ranch. You can hear some of these recordings here:

https://www.reverbnation.com/nitajohaze


----------



## Robert Herndon Project

Blue-N-Clues:

Compare this orginal version of Mom's song "Crazy Lizzy" recorded in 1979 (Mom was 39 then) with Buckaroo's Terry Kristofferson on lead guitar, Doyle Kurtsinger on bass, and Bobby Gallardo on drums:

https://www.reverbnation.com/nitajohaze/song/8143691-crazy-lizzie

....with the version we re-vamped into a blues number in 2011 in her ranch studio.

This hasn't been final EQ'd yet, so expect some track to track volume anomolies, but Mom did an incredible job on it vocally at 74...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dut9f6r1roip9lv/Crazy Lizzy MP3.mp3?dl=0


----------



## Robert Herndon Project

Nice tone on "Just Riffage" by the way...


----------



## Ghostman

I don't think I've ever read the word "Mom" in the last two pages, more than I have my whole life. Is this person YOUR mom? or someone who's famously known as "Mom" because it's kinda weird.


----------



## Sound Of A Gun

AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing said:


> thanks, I think I read some of that previously. sounds like they did use some light delay/verb. I guess if anyone has suggestions on how to FAKE the effect of what they accomplished naturally eith my totally dry recording (reverb/delay types, settings) I'd be appreciative.



I normally set up a "Room Bus" in my DAW with a reverb set 100% wet; then insert sends from all the other buses (guitars, vocals, bass etc.), then use the send levels to control the "depth" of the room. Use a high pass filter on an EQ to take some of the boom out of the bus output and then mix it in low in the overall mix. You can A/B the mix once the room bus is set up using the mute button on the bus. This normally gets pretty good results.


----------



## Robert Herndon Project

Ghostman said:


> I don't think I've ever read the word "Mom" in the last two pages, more than I have my whole life. Is this person YOUR mom? or someone who's famously known as "Mom" because it's kinda weird.



Yep, that's my real Mom and after nearly losing her in 2008, I am so happy her and Pop are still with us. She was the one who got me started in music, gave me my first guitar and allowed me to use the studio.

In 2011, I restored and gifted her with that first guitar and pulled her into the session (unexpectedly) and she so enjoyed that experience. 

I'm a really happy guy and just love sharing these things.

A few weeks ago, a very frail friend of my parent's came to visit them while mom was recording some cowboy poetry. We learned that he passed away the very next evening, so I'm cherishing every little thing.

Thanks for tolerating me...


----------



## blues_n_cues

this one always kicks my a**........
the vocals are basically scratch but the fact that it's KRK 8's @ 35% volume w/ a 10% treble reduxtion and great treatment is vibrating my 15x25 room..........


----------



## blues_n_cues

got a bunch of new toys so here we go.........


----------



## Dmann

blues_n_cues said:


> got a bunch of new toys so here we go.........


such as?


----------



## 12barjunkie

blues_n_cues said:


> got a bunch of new toys so here we go.........



Do tell


----------



## blues_n_cues

12barjunkie said:


> Do tell


testing Mixcraft 8 Beta & it's got a lot of nice new features.

just a few-
VST3 Support
* MP4 Video Load & Render!
* Performance Panel Record To Slot
* Support for sidechaining plug-ins
* Audio Control of plug-in parameters
* Unlimited nesting of submixes
* Selection & Linking of multiple tracks
* A powerful new sound engine with full plug-in delay compensation on all track types
* Improved, customizable mixer
* Integrated file browser
* Search and use tens of thousands of free sounds from freesound.org
* Mix Stems feature for mixing a project down to individual tracks
* Record all plug-in automation
* Transmit MIDI clock/sync
* View effects list directly in track view
* Ctrl-Solo, Ctrl-Mute to exclusively mute or solo a track
* Auto-quantize MIDI recording option

the PRO version will have a lot of new stuff too but that's not quite ready yet.


----------



## 12barjunkie

Sounds great man, you may make a convert outta me yet


----------



## blues_n_cues

12barjunkie said:


> Sounds great man, you may make a convert outta me yet



the new layout (using 2 monitors)-


----------



## blues_n_cues

once again.. this should have been it's own section years ago.........
you can't even rewind SC plays..
anyway........
guitarists- double track your tracks live. there is no other way to make them sound bigger. it just takes practice.. same w/ vocals.. Mick Jagger & Ozzy got it.. nope... delaying,offseting digitally... NOPE..... the only thing on the face of the Earth to make your tracks & leads sound fatter is to double track them manually & be good with it. it takes practice & with home studios doesn't cost a lot to learn your own off-the-cuff leads the second time.
take my word for it or listen to my songs.. and if ya don't believe me.. Randy Rhoads did it even better because tape was more expensive & he hasd less time... (that ain't really true-lol)


----------



## Frodebro

blues_n_cues said:


> once again.. this should have been it's own section years ago.........
> you can't even rewind SC plays..
> anyway........
> guitarists- double track your tracks live. there is no other way to make them sound bigger. it just takes practice.. same w/ vocals.. Mick Jagger & Ozzy got it.. nope... delaying,offseting digitally... NOPE..... the only thing on the face of the Earth to make your tracks & leads sound fatter is to double track them manually & be good with it. it takes practice & with home studios doesn't cost a lot to learn your own off-the-cuff leads the second time.
> take my word for it or listen to my songs.. and if ya don't believe me.. Randy Rhoads did it even better because tape was more expensive & he hasd less time... (that ain't really true-lol)



I almost always use a Telecaster with a cleaner tone when double (or triple) tracking, it really adds to the overall sound.


----------



## JimiRules

blues_n_cues said:


> testing Mixcraft 8 Beta & it's got a lot of nice new features.
> 
> just a few-
> VST3 Support
> * MP4 Video Load & Render!
> * Performance Panel Record To Slot
> * Support for sidechaining plug-ins
> * Audio Control of plug-in parameters
> * Unlimited nesting of submixes
> * Selection & Linking of multiple tracks
> * A powerful new sound engine with full plug-in delay compensation on all track types
> * Improved, customizable mixer
> * Integrated file browser
> * Search and use tens of thousands of free sounds from freesound.org
> * Mix Stems feature for mixing a project down to individual tracks
> * Record all plug-in automation
> * Transmit MIDI clock/sync
> * View effects list directly in track view
> * Ctrl-Solo, Ctrl-Mute to exclusively mute or solo a track
> * Auto-quantize MIDI recording option
> 
> the PRO version will have a lot of new stuff too but that's not quite ready yet.



That sounds great. Is it possible to upgrade from Mixcraft 6 to 8 when it comes out, or do you have to have 7 in order to upgrade to 8?


----------



## blues_n_cues

JimiRules said:


> That sounds great. Is it possible to upgrade from Mixcraft 6 to 8 when it comes out, or do you have to have 7 in order to upgrade to 8?


you could go straight to 8.


----------



## Coronado

blues_n_cues said:


> this one always kicks my a**........
> the vocals are basically scratch but the fact that it's KRK 8's @ 35% volume w/ a 10% treble reduxtion and great treatment is vibrating my 15x25 room..........




I really dig this Blues... Vocals are great, love the bass. Got a very cool feel to it!!!


----------



## Cthulhu

Reamping Question:

I have a Focusrite Scarlett 2i2. I know I need a reamper in order to successfully reamp, but do I still need a DI box in between my guitar and 2i2, or can I plug my guitar directly into my 2i2? I guess to put it simply, does my 2i2 eliminate the need for the DI box?


----------



## blues_n_cues

speaking of double tracking,now you can do it live too-


----------



## JimiRules

blues_n_cues said:


> the new layout (using 2 monitors)-





blues_n_cues said:


> once again.. this should have been it's own section years ago.........
> you can't even rewind SC plays..
> anyway........
> guitarists- double track your tracks live. there is no other way to make them sound bigger. it just takes practice.. same w/ vocals.. Mick Jagger & Ozzy got it.. nope... delaying,offseting digitally... NOPE..... the only thing on the face of the Earth to make your tracks & leads sound fatter is to double track them manually & be good with it. it takes practice & with home studios doesn't cost a lot to learn your own off-the-cuff leads the second time.
> take my word for it or listen to my songs.. and if ya don't believe me.. Randy Rhoads did it even better because tape was more expensive & he hasd less time... (that ain't really true-lol)



We just started recording our next album and I tried manually double tracking. On our last one I just played the part once, cloned it on mixcraft and panned one left, one right and eq'd them a bit differently. I thought it sounded pretty good, but on this one after reading all over the net about manually double tracking I decided to give it a go. I also went with less gain. A lot less gain. I pretty much just plugged straight into my YJM, cranked it to where it was a bit broken up and beat the hell out of the guitar to crunch it up. No boost pedals, no nothing. I played it once, and then went back and overdubbed another go. When I listened to the track on my tascam I wasn't really happy. I thought the guitar sound was weak, but once I loaded it all into mixcraft, added some compression and EQ and panned them how I wanted them I couldn't believe how huge it sounded, and it sounded like I was using twice the gain than I actually was. I'm definitely a believer of this method.


----------



## blues_n_cues

JimiRules said:


> We just started recording our next album and I tried manually double tracking. On our last one I just played the part once, cloned it on mixcraft and panned one left, one right and eq'd them a bit differently. I thought it sounded pretty good, but on this one after reading all over the net about manually double tracking I decided to give it a go. I also went with less gain. A lot less gain. I pretty much just plugged straight into my YJM, cranked it to where it was a bit broken up and beat the hell out of the guitar to crunch it up. No boost pedals, no nothing. I played it once, and then went back and overdubbed another go. When I listened to the track on my tascam I wasn't really happy. I thought the guitar sound was weak, but once I loaded it all into mixcraft, added some compression and EQ and panned them how I wanted them I couldn't believe how huge it sounded, and it sounded like I was using twice the gain than I actually was. I'm definitely a believer of this method.



the way I usually do it when using that method is to record the main track Stereo-main tone Left w/ a slightly longer delay on the right,then the "cleaner" track in the middle but back a bit in the mix. all of the above work & sound huge. that pedal listed above kinda just saves you time,but yeah,NOTHING done digitally or copy/paste will sound as big as manual double tracking because you can NEVER do the same part twice exactly the same.. there will be slight inflections & that's what makes it great.


----------



## JimiRules

blues_n_cues said:


> the way I usually do it when using that method is to record the main track Stereo-main tone Left w/ a slightly longer delay on the right,then the "cleaner" track in the middle but back a bit in the mix. all of the above work & sound huge. that pedal listed above kinda just saves you time,but yeah,NOTHING done digitally or copy/paste will sound as big as manual double tracking because you can NEVER do the same part twice exactly the same.. there will be slight inflections & that's what makes it great.



I'll have to try putting a clean sound in the middle.

Not being able to play the part the exact same way was what always scared me away from doing it and what made me think the copy and paste method would be better, but like you said, the "imperfections" is what made the difference. Especially when you listen to the track with headphones.


----------



## Sound Of A Gun

Cthulhu said:


> Reamping Question:
> 
> I have a Focusrite Scarlett 2i2. I know I need a reamper in order to successfully reamp, but do I still need a DI box in between my guitar and 2i2, or can I plug my guitar directly into my 2i2? I guess to put it simply, does my 2i2 eliminate the need for the DI box?



Not sure if you sorted this out, but the instrument setting near your input on the interface turns it into a Hi-Z input by adding a 10db boost to the signal, so you shouldn't need a DI box.


----------



## Cthulhu

Sound Of A Gun said:


> Not sure if you sorted this out, but the instrument setting near your input on the interface turns it into a Hi-Z input by adding a 10db boost to the signal, so you shouldn't need a DI box.


Awesome, thanks!


----------



## Coronado

JimiRules said:


> We just started recording our next album and I tried manually double tracking. On our last one I just played the part once, cloned it on mixcraft and panned one left, one right and eq'd them a bit differently. I thought it sounded pretty good, but on this one after reading all over the net about manually double tracking I decided to give it a go. I also went with less gain. A lot less gain. I pretty much just plugged straight into my YJM, cranked it to where it was a bit broken up and beat the hell out of the guitar to crunch it up. No boost pedals, no nothing. I played it once, and then went back and overdubbed another go. When I listened to the track on my tascam I wasn't really happy. I thought the guitar sound was weak, but once I loaded it all into mixcraft, added some compression and EQ and panned them how I wanted them I couldn't believe how huge it sounded, and it sounded like I was using twice the gain than I actually was. I'm definitely a believer of this method.



I find the same results - I will do 4 - 6 rhythm guitar tracks and pan 3 hard left, and 3 hard right (sometimes not quite all the way right and left). I noticed that individually, the track may have the right amount of gain. Mixed with other tracks, it tends to get a bit too muddy and thick. I pull back my gain quite a bit and try to shoot for a more well rounded tone than overall gain. It seems to help when blending the tracks. I also will use different amps and cabs (and guitars). The JCM800 with V30's and 75's are often a bit bright, and they seem to balance out nicely with the H30 from my Orange and DSL.

Blues is right on with the double tracking of leads (an idea he clued me in on a few years back). It really helps bring out your leads and helps them stand out. For my leads, I will do 2 tracks, both panned up the middle, with one being slightly more bright than the next. I often will turn off the delay and reverb when I do 2 lead tracks - sometimes for me, the delay and reverb almost bump into each other. I bet if I played them exactly in sync, I wouldn't have this problem.


----------



## Coronado

JimiRules said:


> I'll have to try putting a clean sound in the middle.
> 
> Not being able to play the part the exact same way was what always scared me away from doing it and what made me think the copy and paste method would be better, but like you said, the "imperfections" is what made the difference. Especially when you listen to the track with headphones.



Right on!! Before Blues taught me this technique, I thought why not just copy the lead track? That will save time, AND it will be a perfect match! Unfortunately, it doesn't translate very well. You are so right - those slight differences help bring out that stereo sound, and gives it that cool sound. Who knew that playing an imperfect match would actually make it sound better?!


----------



## Coronado

blues_n_cues said:


> speaking of double tracking,now you can do it live too-




VERY interesting Blues!! Wondering if this is something you could turn on and just leave it on? Or would it be too much to always have going?


----------



## blues_n_cues

Coronado said:


> VERY interesting Blues!! Wondering if this is something you could turn on and just leave it on? Or would it be too much to always have going?



you could do a number of things but it works best in a 2 amp or stereo loop configuration. you could add verb &/or delay to one amp or side or split them for leads & it would come out sounding huge.
when I get mine I'll be using it in my Tri-amp configuration using it on the stereo outer amps then a separate fx chain in the middle amp for leads to see how that sounds.


----------



## JimiRules

Coronado said:


> I find the same results - I will do 4 - 6 rhythm guitar tracks and pan 3 hard left, and 3 hard right (sometimes not quite all the way right and left). I noticed that individually, the track may have the right amount of gain. Mixed with other tracks, it tends to get a bit too muddy and thick. I pull back my gain quite a bit and try to shoot for a more well rounded tone than overall gain. It seems to help when blending the tracks. I also will use different amps and cabs (and guitars). The JCM800 with V30's and 75's are often a bit bright, and they seem to balance out nicely with the H30 from my Orange and DSL.
> 
> Blues is right on with the double tracking of leads (an idea he clued me in on a few years back). It really helps bring out your leads and helps them stand out. For my leads, I will do 2 tracks, both panned up the middle, with one being slightly more bright than the next. I often will turn off the delay and reverb when I do 2 lead tracks - sometimes for me, the delay and reverb almost bump into each other. I bet if I played them exactly in sync, I wouldn't have this problem.



When we did our last CD I used more gain and I ran into a big problem when I was trying to mix in the bass. It seemed like they were competing for the same space in the mix and everything was very muddy. When doing these new tracks I noticed it was much easier mixing and there was no mud at all. The guitar and bass was very defined and wasn't trying to fit in the same space.

As far as doubling the leads go, I'm going to have to really practice on that one. Most of my leads tend to be off the cuff. I may plan how I want to start it and end it, but what happens in between usually just happens!



Coronado said:


> Right on!! Before Blues taught me this technique, I thought why not just copy the lead track? That will save time, AND it will be a perfect match! Unfortunately, it doesn't translate very well. You are so right - those slight differences help bring out that stereo sound, and gives it that cool sound. Who knew that playing an imperfect match would actually make it sound better?!



Me and the singer in my band met up this past weekend to write some songs and we recorded what we came up with so we wouldn't forget it. I usually try to mix those demos too. They're not going to be used, but I like to do it for practice. I only recorded one guitar track as it was only a demo, but I cloned my guitar track and offset it by 40 milliseconds and it had almost the same effect. I'm not saying I'm going to continue doing it as it's more fun to play the part again, but I guess if you're in a pinch for time it's not a bad method. I even did it with the vocals and it gave somewhat of an ADT effect.


----------



## 4Horseman

I need a little interface advise, please . I've been using a firewire interface, which has been great, but my computer is about to be replaced due to age and performance issues. It seems that firewire is not so popular anymore and I would like more than 2 XLR inputs, preferably a rack unit. Do any of you guys use Thunderbolt interfaces? Are they worth the extra money? I've had no latency problems with firewire and would like to keep it that way. Do any of you use a Motu? Suggestions appreciated, thanks.


----------



## Ghostman

I have used the Thunderbolt interfaces in other applications other than my own home studio. They have worked flawlessly. One thing I noticed is that using my interface for my Mac Mini via USB, there's a very small amount of latency when I turn my mix between "live" and "monitor" feeds on my interface. When I did the same test with the Thunderbolt setup, there was not latency, and no difference between "live" and "monitor" feeds. 

I would use my Thunderbolt interface on my Mac Mini, but I'm using it as a monitor out to feed my second monitor. I will get a hub eventually, but for now, that's the setup. 

I have not compared Firewire and Thunderbolts directly though.


----------



## Coronado

Roland drum question: Hello gentlemen, I have heard that I can download different drum "sets" to my Roland TD-11KV. Does anyone happen to know any good sites? I've started looking, but thought I would check and see if anyone knew of any decent sites. Thanks!!


----------



## renips

I use the IMAC 5k with Thunderbolt. I use the Apollo UAD 2 Quad interface. It is not the cheapest alternative on the block but the plug ins!!! WOW!!!! Latency is a very common problem when recording. With the UAD format it is minimal. I never have problem. Always mute the track when recording. This will help eliminate latency. There is much more I could get into but I don't have the patience LOL


----------



## blues_n_cues

I would love to keep up w/ this secrion & this thread but lately I have come up w/ de·il·i·tat·ing cramps.
i can't even sneeze or cough w/out my body going into cramping fits from neck to ass to ribs to toes & the midsection is really bad.. hard to describe it...............I can wake up in the mid of the night in freakin' knots,i can look to the left & the whole body spasms,I can sit here lazy in my studio chair & all of a sudden it's like getting tazed in the belly & I STAND UP,straighen up,& someone flashes me in the hammy, then right again in the ribs............but ..it's not electrical,,, it's just cramps..........it sucks.
anyone else get this?


----------



## Ghostman

three words Blues, "See a doctor"


----------



## Frodebro

renips said:


> I use the IMAC 5k with Thunderbolt. I use the Apollo UAD 2 Quad interface. It is not the cheapest alternative on the block but the plug ins!!! WOW!!!! Latency is a very common problem when recording. With the UAD format it is minimal. I never have problem. Always mute the track when recording. This will help eliminate latency. There is much more I could get into but I don't have the patience LOL



I have the Apollo Twin Duo, which I've been extremely happy with. As soon as finances allow I'll be picking up a Satellite Octo to bump up the horsepower.


----------



## bulldozer1984

Robert Herndon Project said:


> During the recording of Back in Black, Engineer Tony Platt recalled, "With AC/DC, it had always been about the riff - and on Back in Black, there would be plenty of them: “Hells Bells,” “Shoot to Thrill,” “You Shook Me” (eventually the band’s first Top 40 hit) and the unrelenting title track featured the dynamic interplay between Angus’ right-channel SG lead and brother Malcolm’s left-channel Gretsch rhythm. From his control-room vantage point, Platt realized the sound he was after was already coming through the monitors; processing and other add-ons would be purposely left off the rhythm tracks. “We all had a good idea of how we wanted it to sound right from the start,” says Platt, “and so our goal was to get it on tape there, rather than leaving it for the final mix. Being restricted to 24 tracks meant that a lot of the decisions would be made early on, which also added to the feeling of immediacy. But most off all, they just played it like it is! There was hardly any patching required - we’d just cut takes until we had a nice balance of perfection and feel.”
> 
> As so often happens, on Back in Black the make-up of the studio itself helped determine the recording dynamics. “The set up and approach was quite different from Highway,” notes Platt, who’d come aboard during the mix phase of the previous album. “Highway had been recorded in a very dead studio, so much so that during mixing I’d fed various parts back through the speakers and into the studio, recording the result for extra ambience. So when it came time to do Back in Black, the idea was to get that ambience on tape right from the start. The room at Compass Point was fairly large but had a low-ish ceiling, which concerned me a little as I didn’t want the room to compress the sound. We spent some time choosing the right position for the drums by hitting a snare in various parts of the room. I discovered a ‘sweet spot’ where the snare suddenly sounded bigger, deeper, fuller and most important, snappier. I subsequently discovered that there was a void above this position that was obviously allowing the sound to rise without choking it!”
> 
> For Angus’ solo tracks (which were overdubbed), Platt employed two stacks, one in the main room and another in a live chamber at the far end of the building. “We used Angus’s radios to transmit to these amps,” says Platt. “The radios actually proved to be quite an important part of the sound, as they added some mid bite. I used two Neumann U67s on each cabinet, so I could pan the result where I wanted. And absolutely no compression was used at all.”
> 
> Pay attention here:
> 
> "Mixing for the album took place at Electric Lady Studios in New York shortly after the sessions were completed. “The size of the sound is really a combination of things,” says Platt. “The tuning is good, the arrangements are spacious, the recording isn’t heavily processed, aside from some subtle addition of delays and light reverb just for extra ambience. I remember we also monitored quietly so we could balance carefully.”
> 
> Been an AC/DC tone guy for a long time....



This is awesome information and just confirms what other pros always say. Get it right in the room. Know your parts so the band is tight, record in a good room, get good tone on tracking day, use room ambience etc. 

Another important aspect is the Mics they used. You don't need U67's but just know that they are LDC's which I think are integral to good Marshall tone. I'm not a SM57 guy on mid heavy Marshalls and its good to hear pros using JUST LDC's
On some of the best recorded Marshall tones in History !


----------



## blues_n_cues

yes........ crank it up.
point being... this sounds like loud cranked guitar (or 3) complete w/ sustained harmonic feedback but I recorded this direct-in w/ a power amp sim & 3 tracks using 3 totally different techniques. HAHA........
enjoy.
if you wish to discuss or debate I'm more than willing to discuss the technique involved and how to achieve it.


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

So what LDCs do folks like (and what do they cost)? Only one I own I bought for vocals (AT4050). Have not messed with it much for amps.


----------



## Sound Of A Gun

AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing said:


> So what LDCs do folks like (and what do they cost)? Only one I own I bought for vocals (AT4050). Have not messed with it much for amps.



I bought a Rode NT2-A about a year ago; don't like it on my vocals (I seem to bring out a metallic harshness in it!), it is pretty good on a guitar cab though and has a 10db pad so you can give it some abuse. I use an MXL 990 on my vocals which has always worked pretty well (SDC though) and I have a Pure XIX which is good on both vocals and cabs at low volume; it has quite a flat sound to it, but cannot do a high SPL due to the lack of a pad.

Never tried an Audio Technica mic, but my M50X headphones are awesome!


----------



## Coronado

blues_n_cues said:


> I would love to keep up w/ this secrion & this thread but lately I have come up w/ de·il·i·tat·ing cramps.
> i can't even sneeze or cough w/out my body going into cramping fits from neck to ass to ribs to toes & the midsection is really bad.. hard to describe it...............I can wake up in the mid of the night in freakin' knots,i can look to the left & the whole body spasms,I can sit here lazy in my studio chair & all of a sudden it's like getting tazed in the belly & I STAND UP,straighen up,& someone flashes me in the hammy, then right again in the ribs............but ..it's not electrical,,, it's just cramps..........it sucks.
> anyone else get this?



Holly shit Blues! Somehow I missed this post until just now... How are you doing?! Is this still happening? That has absolutely got to be the WORST experience ever!!


----------



## Ghostman

Mic placement fix: I hate setting up my mic to record. It takes too long and I lose my mojo quickly. I found this product and just had to buy it and try it. 






Buy the extra clips to put on other cabs and you can swap out mics almost instantly. Goodbye mic placement woes


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

someone makes a robotic arm that can move the mic around for you that you can control remotely, so you can listen from another room or wherever while listening to the actual to-be-recorded tone while making adjustments.


----------



## blues_n_cues

oiops am I banned or di I JUST GET A BIT HONEST.
just when 3 years later the dreyn stupidity of the MF came homne to no-nunk-ville.. we got Blades amps & some jackwagon thiking that LED, cupholder, bees in dabox firehazard is worth $3000+ is dollars........ so funny.......
http://bgky.craigslist.org/msg/5987354423.html
Le Meow Le Purr......NOT.........


----------



## blues_n_cues

oops.. then there's the Blades crap,


----------



## Ghostman

when your product is crap, fall back on gimmicks to sell them.


----------



## Coronado

Ghostman said:


> Mic placement fix: I hate setting up my mic to record. It takes too long and I lose my mojo quickly. I found this product and just had to buy it and try it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost, you may have come up with the best method yet!! I dig this!! AND, its cheaper than the pricey cab grabbers. I see a patent in your future!
> 
> GC sells this bendable attachment that you can connect from your mic stand to your mic holder (goes in between your stand and the mic). Its about 10 inches long, they sell one that's 15 or 20 inches long as well. Great idea. The problem is that after you bend the attachment about 10 times, it begins to lose its hold and it starts to droop. Plus, a SM58 alone was heavy enough to make the attachment droop. I LOVE this idea Ghost!!
> 
> Buy the extra clips to put on other cabs and you can swap out mics almost instantly. Goodbye mic placement woes


----------



## Coronado

blues_n_cues said:


> oiops am I banned or di I JUST GET A BIT HONEST.
> just when 3 years later the dreyn stupidity of the MF came homne to no-nunk-ville.. we got Blades amps & some jackwagon thiking that LED, cupholder, bees in dabox firehazard is worth $3000+ is dollars........ so funny.......
> http://bgky.craigslist.org/msg/5987354423.html
> Le Meow Le Purr......NOT.........



ooooff. Well, its colorful, I'll give him that. Cup holder?


----------



## Ghostman

Coronado, here you go buddy:

http://www.ampclamps.com/


----------



## Coronado

Ghostman said:


> Coronado, here you go buddy:
> 
> http://www.ampclamps.com/



Hey, not too shabby! Thanks!! These look pretty cool! They look more stable than the cab grabber too!


----------



## blues_n_cues

Coronado said:


> ooooff. Well, its colorful, I'll give him that. Cup holder?


you gotta have the cupholder,otherwise you don't rate.


----------



## SG~GUY

So I got a Lamda, had it for a couple years, had it working twice!! it only runs with windows 7, I got a windows 7 disc, and for awhile I had that + whatever I have now, but I'm getting frustrated, seems these things are like cell phones, the day after you buy it, its out of date, WTF!!

-so I been getting a lot of sh*t to make some clips bye some dudes who will go un-named, but there initials are BLUES N CUE's!! what's the easiest way to make clips that are at least passable sound wise? I've tried downloading stuff like reaper, no go, I'm not puta-savoy, I had a hand held ZOOM thing for awhile, is this the way to go for a puta idiot like me? I don't wanna spend a lot, I have a sm57 & a good ART stereo tube mic pre, i've seen that there are new handheld units like the zoom that will take a mic, other than the built in one

-reaction!!!

-(dam i miss my old 16 track hard drive unit I got out of a recording studio)-


----------



## blues_n_cues

SG~GUY said:


> So I got a Lamda, had it for a couple years, had it working twice!! it only runs with windows 7, I got a windows 7 disc, and for awhile I had that + whatever I have now, but I'm getting frustrated, seems these things are like cell phones, the day after you buy it, its out of date, WTF!!
> 
> -so I been getting a lot of sh*t to make some clips bye some dudes who will go un-named, but there initials are BLUES N CUE's!! what's the easiest way to make clips that are at least passable sound wise? I've tried downloading stuff like reaper, no go, I'm not puta-savoy, I had a hand held ZOOM thing for awhile, is this the way to go for a puta idiot like me? I don't wanna spend a lot, I have a sm57 & a good ART stereo tube mic pre, i've seen that there are new handheld units like the zoom that will take a mic, other than the built in one
> 
> -reaction!!!
> 
> -(dam i miss my old 16 track hard drive unit I got out of a recording studio)-



Lamda? did you say Lamda?
(sorry it was there)


----------



## SG~GUY

-I was actually looking at the newer zoom units with a built in mic, and 2 mic ports, I'm not sure if they're still just memory cards, or they come with some sort of hard ware, they're simple, like me!


----------



## blues_n_cues

ha


SG~GUY said:


> So I got a Lamda, had it for a couple years, had it working twice!! it only runs with windows 7, I got a windows 7 disc, and for awhile I had that + whatever I have now, but I'm getting frustrated, seems these things are like cell phones, the day after you buy it, its out of date, WTF!!
> 
> -so I been getting a lot of sh*t to make some clips bye some dudes who will go un-named, but there initials are BLUES N CUE's!! what's the easiest way to make clips that are at least passable sound wise? I've tried downloading stuff like reaper, no go, I'm not puta-savoy, I had a hand held ZOOM thing for awhile, is this the way to go for a puta idiot like me? I don't wanna spend a lot, I have a sm57 & a good ART stereo tube mic pre, i've seen that there are new handheld units like the zoom that will take a mic, other than the built in one
> 
> -reaction!!!
> 
> -(dam i miss my old 16 track hard drive unit I got out of a recording studio)-


LOL.I saw that....... what OS are you running now?
you should be able to downloar Reaper,Audacity, or @ least Garageband w/ no issues.

this old thing will work on W7 & is metal housed. I use it for a backup if I need it & it can also double as a doorstop. you can find them all day long on EBAY for around $40 used.
I (over)paid $68 for mine to benefit a Cherokee Reservation school.


----------



## ColorfulMusic




----------



## blues_n_cues

let's see your studio rooms now.........


----------



## blues_n_cues

let's just talk "vintage" gear.... say VH-1 guitars & I 'm not even covering it all-
you just said it... PRICE... there are certain pedals that aren't going to get better than the originals but they just cost more.
Rupert Neve 571 Mic Preamp
EchoPlex ec2 or 3
T.C.2290
MXR 110V Stereo Chorus
it is what it is.......... you pay more for modern touches for a 'vintage" sound..... you want vintage,you buy old sh*t... BTW, for that VH1 Phase sound you need-Ed,Frankenstein,a modded Variaced Marshall,the Phase 90,Echoplex ep-3 as a gain "pedal",Ted Temepleman @ the board,a UA 610 mic preamp,etc.etc.etc....and beer cans w/ coke dust all over the floor........in THAT room.........@ THAT time.......WITH Dave & THAT brand of Sony tape......etc.etc.etc.

now,,That costs a lot of money...........But.. how many of you even know what are or looked into 500 module gear?

let's talk 500 module gear.
or do you even know what that is?


----------



## Coronado

blues_n_cues said:


> let's just talk "vintage" gear.... say VH-1 guitars & I 'm not even covering it all-
> you just said it... PRICE... there are certain pedals that aren't going to get better than the originals but they just cost more.
> Rupert Neve 571 Mic Preamp
> EchoPlex ec2 or 3
> T.C.2290
> MXR 110V Stereo Chorus
> it is what it is.......... you pay more for modern touches for a 'vintage" sound..... you want vintage,you buy old sh*t... BTW, for that VH1 Phase sound you need-Ed,Frankenstein,a modded Variaced Marshall,the Phase 90,Echoplex ep-3 as a gain "pedal",Ted Temepleman @ the board,a UA 610 mic preamp,etc.etc.etc....and beer cans w/ coke dust all over the floor........in THAT room.........@ THAT time.......WITH Dave & THAT brand of Sony tape......etc.etc.etc.
> 
> now,,That costs a lot of money...........But.. how many of you even know what are or looked into 500 module gear?
> 
> let's talk 500 module gear.
> or do you even know what that is?



No Sir, 500 module gear? Help edjamacate your brothers my friend.  

I would like to give some of that vintage gear a try!!


----------



## ColorfulMusic

I would post studio room, but I am sick n tired of putting pics on Photobucket. If I could just insert image(s) from computer that would be great.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

ColorfulMusic said:


> I would post studio room, but I am sick n tired of putting pics on Photobucket. If I could just insert image(s) from computer that would be great.


use "upload a file" in the post options...


----------



## Coronado

Dogs of Doom said:


> use "upload a file" in the post options...



Hey Dod, do you know if there is a way to reduce the size of a picture in order to be able to attach it when you get the message "the attachment exceeds the size limit"?. Seems like my old Samsung took pictures that would fit - the new phone appears to take pics that are larger than before? Perhaps a settings feature?


----------



## ColorfulMusic

Using Cakewalk Sonar Professional. Roland JunoGi as midi. Macke 8' monitors. And for secondary check when mixing, inexpensive Samson monitors.

Just started using ART mic pre amp. Used it on melody and solos for 'Beware the Boogeyman'. Taking advice from John Cuniberti, I have set the mic setting to Vocal for melody recordings. I use no pedals with the amp except for DecimatorII in front. All FX I add in Sonar.(Dry going into record)

My JVM205H is used for all guitars. The cab 1960B(not shown) is in the garage in a sealed ISO box where there is always a SM57 slightly angled close to cone. Cable which runs up and over is for cab in ISO

I know this looks primitive, but since I cannot put two mics in ISO box without cross phasing, when recording with two mics I am simply moving CRATE cab into garage where I have the room to move mics around. Sound difference is huge. I am trying to come up with a better way. I have a out building about 120' from house where I am considering putting the cabinets and than buying a Banana cable that can handle all inputs and outputs I need.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Coronado said:


> Hey Dod, do you know if there is a way to reduce the size of a picture in order to be able to attach it when you get the message "the attachment exceeds the size limit"?. Seems like my old Samsung took pictures that would fit - the new phone appears to take pics that are larger than before? Perhaps a settings feature?


you need to resize it in an image editor. Microsoft has Paint, as a default image program. I'm not sure about Apple, but, I know they have an image editing program as well...


----------



## SG~GUY

blues_n_cues said:


> let's just talk "vintage" gear.... say VH-1 guitars & I 'm not even covering it all-
> you just said it... PRICE... there are certain pedals that aren't going to get better than the originals but they just cost more.
> Rupert Neve 571 Mic Preamp
> EchoPlex ec2 or 3
> T.C.2290
> MXR 110V Stereo Chorus
> it is what it is.......... you pay more for modern touches for a 'vintage" sound..... you want vintage,you buy old sh*t... BTW, for that VH1 Phase sound you need-Ed,Frankenstein,a modded Variaced Marshall,the Phase 90,Echoplex ep-3 as a gain "pedal",Ted Temepleman @ the board,a UA 610 mic preamp,etc.etc.etc....and beer cans w/ coke dust all over the floor........in THAT room.........@ THAT time.......WITH Dave & THAT brand of Sony tape......etc.etc.etc.
> 
> now,,That costs a lot of money...........But.. how many of you even know what are or looked into 500 module gear?
> 
> let's talk 500 module gear.
> or do you even know what that is?




-" i know nothing!!!". <------SRGT SCHULTZ---<<


----------



## SG~GUY

-I thought it was all about your $5000 tube mic pre?


----------



## blues_n_cues

SG~GUY said:


> -I thought it was all about your $5000 tube mic pre?


nah.. you can build one for less than $100,buy one for $300, or go.. a.. Neve......for $1500 & still plug that $99.00 Shure 57 into it.........what's the point?
no matter the $$$ you gotta know the limits,what you want, & what you need to achieve.. it's like guitars & pickups.....what are you going for. go check out 500 modules.. you CAN do more for less.....the modern Studio owner knows this & can budget accordingly...not to mention a cheaper electric bill & space.


----------



## blues_n_cues

SG~GUY said:


> -I thought it was all about your $5000 tube mic pre?


I love you Brother but you're trying to start an argument you can't win.


----------



## blues_n_cues

SG~GUY said:


> -I thought it was all about your $5000 tube mic pre?


nah,it's all about "whiskey dickin" a mic after 5 packs of Pall Malls.


----------



## blues_n_cues

ColorfulMusic said:


> View attachment 40614
> Using Cakewalk Sonar Professional. Roland JunoGi as midi. Macke 8' monitors. And for secondary check when mixing, inexpensive Samson monitors.
> View attachment 40615
> Just started using ART mic pre amp. Used it on melody and solos for 'Beware the Boogeyman'. Taking advice from John Cuniberti, I have set the mic setting to Vocal for melody recordings. I use no pedals with the amp except for DecimatorII in front. All FX I add in Sonar.(Dry going into record)
> View attachment 40616
> My JVM205H is used for all guitars. The cab 1960B(not shown) is in the garage in a sealed ISO box where there is always a SM57 slightly angled close to cone. Cable which runs up and over is for cab in ISO
> View attachment 40617
> I know this looks primitive, but since I cannot put two mics in ISO box without cross phasing, when recording with two mics I am simply moving CRATE cab into garage where I have the room to move mics around. Sound difference is huge. I am trying to come up with a better way. I have a out building about 120' from house where I am considering putting the cabinets and than buying a Banana cable that can handle all inputs and outputs I need.
> View attachment 40619
> 
> View attachment 40620
> 
> View attachment 40621




nice room but WOULD help immensley would be to pull the desk & speakers back away about 3-5' from the wall. I can't do it in mine either so I have to have "soakers" & reflection buffers.-
https://www.google.com/search?sourc...cue&gs_l=hp....0.0.0.84567...........0.#spf=1


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

any of you guys have thoughts on the guitar amp/sim software/plugins? I know that may be sacrilege but despite my best efforts trying to record my amp doesnt sound much or really any better than the sims. Even Logic's built in stuff sounds pretty good, but anyone here like Guitar rig, amplitube, etc. ?


----------



## blues_n_cues

AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing said:


> any of you guys have thoughts on the guitar amp/sim software/plugins? I know that may be sacrilege but despite my best efforts trying to record my amp doesnt sound much or really any better than the sims. Even Logic's built in stuff sounds pretty good, but anyone here like Guitar rig, amplitube, etc. ?


I do a lot of sims & even real amp/Marshall JMP-1 Preampto sim,& plug-in combos/hybrids.
a lot of what you hear on my SC/RN sites are the Marshall JMP-1 Midi Pre direct to an Ignite pwr amp sim & various Plug-ins.I use a lot of different things depending on what I want to do & even use them live.


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

Fancy! I don't think I know how to do a quarter of what you're talking about. All I have is my DSL40c. . .don't think it has a line out or anything. Curious if anyone has any love for one sim plugin over another.


----------



## bulldozer1984

AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing said:


> Fancy! I don't think I know how to do a quarter of what you're talking about. All I have is my DSL40c. . .don't think it has a line out or anything. Curious if anyone has any love for one sim plugin over another.



I have a UAD PCIE card in my PC which allows me to have their awesome simulations that were modeled by Brainworx. I have the Friedman BE100 plugin and the ENGL E765 RT plugin as well which both sound so real it is truly astonishing. No other sims that I am aware of sound this good and I have tried my share IE. S-Gear, Amplitube, Bias and others.


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

Hmmm. I'm on a Mac so whatever that card is I don't think I can use/get it. Literally an internal card a something that plugs in via USB. . . like a dongle?


----------



## bulldozer1984

There are 3 options with UAD (Universal Audio). Buy one of their interfaces, PCIE cards or firewire/thunderbolt satellites (like a big dongle)

But honestly unless you are after the faithful emulations they provide, its alot of money to get into and not all that versatile unless you spend alot of money buying all the individual plugins. 

They are known for their emulations of not just amps but notorious pieces of outboard recording gear like UREI 1176, Teletronix LA2A and Fairchild compressors etc, plus EQ's and preamps etc the list goes on. 

I bought a second solo card (only 1 DSP chip) just for the emulations of the amps I wanted and I waited until they were on sale. I also have the AMPEG bass amp emu.


----------



## Australian

bulldozer1984 said:


> I have a UAD PCIE card in my PC which allows me to have their awesome simulations that were modeled by Brainworx. I have the Friedman BE100 plugin and the ENGL E765 RT plugin as well which both sound so real it is truly astonishing. No other sims that I am aware of sound this good and I have tried my share IE. S-Gear, Amplitube, Bias and others.




Yep Brainworx are really good plugins. Having the Kemper and using Friedman profiles with it, I like the Kemper sound much more, because the UAD Friedman is very noisy (the Kemper doesnt have any amp noise). I tried the Freidman demo with the intention of buying it, but never did.


----------



## Australian

ILOUD monitors. I am looking at getting a pair. They have Bluetooth and all you need for a second pair of reference monitors.

Are any of you using them yet?

​


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

Oh ok. Yeah we're basically hobbyists so big money investment is a no go.


----------



## bulldozer1984

Australian said:


> Yep Brainworx are really good plugins. Having the Kemper and using Friedman profiles with it, I like the Kemper sound much more, because the UAD Friedman is very noisy (the Kemper doesnt have any amp noise). I tried the Freidman demo with the intention of buying it, but never did.



I agree about the noise. It just seems dumb to me that the one thing they are able to change with a model is the noise floor of the amp yet they keep it in with no way to turn it off ! There should be a switch instead of the useless gate they put in the FX section. 

I would love to get a Kemper. Do you use it live too Aus ?


----------



## SG~GUY

-so my cousin who lives in the basement couldn't get my LAMBDA to work, apparently its out dated and no longer has any support or upgrades, I'm sick of this computer sh*t, its out dated and obsolete as soon as you buy it, I'm definitely not a computer guy, I'm gonna go to a ZOOM H4NPRO I think, its simple and has buttons and nobs


----------



## Australian

bulldozer1984 said:


> I agree about the noise. It just seems dumb to me that the one thing they are able to change with a model is the noise floor of the amp yet they keep it in with no way to turn it off ! There should be a switch instead of the useless gate they put in the FX section.
> 
> I would love to get a Kemper. Do you use it live too Aus ?




I like using an amp live. I love the sound of a half stack behind me. I have used the Kemper live a few times.

And the UAD Friedman well, I can understand authenticity(white noise and all) but the guitarist and listener has always wanted less noise, so they missed the boat on that one.


----------



## Ghostman

SG~GUY said:


> -so my cousin who lives in the basement couldn't get my LAMBDA to work, apparently its out dated and no longer has any support or upgrades, I'm sick of this computer sh*t, its out dated and obsolete as soon as you buy it, I'm definitely not a computer guy, I'm gonna go to a ZOOM H4NPRO I think, its simple and has buttons and nobs


Are you talking about the Lexicon Lamba? It's still in full production, and full support.


----------



## SG~GUY

Ghostman said:


> Are you talking about the Lexicon Lamba? It's still in full production, and full support.




-yup!! Mine runs of windows XP


----------



## Ghostman

SG~GUY said:


> -yup!! Mine runs of windows XP


They have drivers to run on any of the Windows platforms.


----------



## SG~GUY

Ghostman said:


> They have drivers to run on any of the Windows platforms.




-hmmmmmm... Well I will "e-mail" them again, since ya can't talk to a real live native English speaking person, see what they say, I know the last time I "talked" to them I had to get a windows XP OS disc, put it on top of my windows 7 -(this was per them)- so I'll ship everything thing to you and you can get it working right..


----------



## Australian

Australian said:


> ILOUD monitors. I am looking at getting a pair. They have Bluetooth and all you need for a second pair of reference monitors.
> 
> Are any of you using them yet?
> 
> ​





Anyone?


----------



## Marshallmaniac

Just ordered a Boss BR900CD with part thanks/inspiration to this thread. 

Basically looking at doing something different music wise instead of just jumping into another band. I have some atmospheric stuff to try so looking forward to it!!


----------



## FTMF

Very cool thread \../


----------



## blues_n_cues

so anyway..........loads of Marshall tones out of a 25 year old Preamp


then there was more out of the same rig.........Iron Maiden 1991 until now.


----------



## ibmorjamn

My god, there are to many pages. This a website alone !
Mixcraft 7 home . What is the big difference from the pro version.
Or major differences ?


----------



## ibmorjamn

Ok , let me back up. I have a Roland 2 input Iinterface , Sonar le 1 (free)
Set up worked fine but now for some reason playback seems to skip very slightly. I don't know what is causing it . the laptop or software.


----------



## Frodebro

ibmorjamn said:


> Ok , let me back up. I have a Roland 2 input Iinterface , Sonar le 1 (free)
> Set up worked fine but now for some reason playback seems to skip very slightly. I don't know what is causing it . the laptop or software.



My first guess would be the laptop. If you're recording your tracks to the same hard drive that is also running your operating system and DAW software, things can bog down rather quickly.


----------



## johnfv

ibmorjamn said:


> Ok , let me back up. I have a Roland 2 input Iinterface , Sonar le 1 (free)
> Set up worked fine but now for some reason playback seems to skip very slightly. I don't know what is causing it . the laptop or software.


Is it a USB interface? Do you have anything else USB connected?


----------



## johnfv

Frodebro said:


> ...If you're recording your tracks to the same hard drive that is also running your operating system and DAW software, things can bog down rather quickly.


Good point. My laptop fortunately had 2 drive bays so I put added SSD for the OS and have a dedicated data drive. Works very well, I have recorded 14 tracks at the same time no issues.


----------



## ibmorjamn

Ok , I bet thats it. Maybe I can clean out some older stuff. It was working fine for months now it's messing up on playback.
Is it possible to maybe take the recording and load it on a usb drive and play it elsewhere or would the recording be jacked up. I only have one usb plugged in. It is dedicated for recording only. It has amassed quite a lot of sheite over the last year.


----------



## Frodebro

johnfv said:


> Good point. My laptop fortunately had 2 drive bays so I put added SSD for the OS and have a dedicated data drive. Works very well, I have recorded 14 tracks at the same time no issues.



That's the way to go. I'm running a 2015 MacBook Pro with the OS and Logic Pro on its internal SSD, my plug-in library is on an external high speed Thunderbolt drive, and everything is recorded to another high speed external drive. Interface is a Thunderbolt UA Apollo Twin Duo. I have some things with over fifty tracks (many of them software instruments),lots of additional plug-ins (compression, EQ, reverb, etc), and the processor rarely goes above 30% usage.


----------



## ibmorjamn

blues_n_cues said:


> so anyway..........loads of Marshall tones out of a 25 year old Preamp
> 
> 
> then there was more out of the same rig.........Iron Maiden 1991 until now.


You suck man , I am so far from doing the kinds of recordings/engineering besides playing ability but I guess it is inspiring to now what can be done if you work hard at it. I guess talent is important. Lol
You rock as always Bnc


----------



## Coronado

Hello recording chums! So, I've been dabbling with several different mixing/mastering type software packages (VSTs), and some have been pretty good. But they are not cheap by any means. Slate came out with their *bundle* approach, where for 15 bucks a month, you get all of their tools. Its a contract deal for a year, so you can either pay the 15 a month or like $180 for the year. Either way, just having access to some of their compressors, EQs, and reel-to-reel stuff would be pretty cool. Anyone looked into this yet? For $180 bucks (basically the price of an effects pedal) you get some pretty awesome tools. Most likely going to sign up, but wanted to see if anyone had heard of this, perhaps even used some of Slate's tools? Thanks!


----------



## Dogs of Doom

I want stuff that I can own, not rent/lease...

That said, I've got some guitar stuff for free, that doesn't seem to work. They keep offering me more stuff & it doesn't seem to work either. All for various reasons. It's Positive Grid stuff, that, I have a lot of friends that use it & rave it up.

I had something else, a while back, that I bought, & had to get a refund, because it ruined my iLok dongle. It kept saying that my old dongle version was newer than it, but when it changed it, it killed my other plug-ins. So, I had to restore the old iLok & the new program was unusable. Then I've had newer ones, that they offer me for free & I need a separate dongle, but they want me to purchase it.

This new software stuff, is just ridiculous. You have to rent/lease. You have to buy a dongle disc to try out software for free.

What ever happened to just offering a product & buying it? & if you don't like it, sell it to someone else...

Rant over...

Sorry, I haven't heard of them. Do I have to buy an iLok dongle to try them out? ...


----------



## Coronado

Dogs of Doom said:


> I want stuff that I can own, not rent/lease...
> 
> That said, I've got some guitar stuff for free, that doesn't seem to work. They keep offering me more stuff & it doesn't seem to work either. All for various reasons. It's Positive Grid stuff, that, I have a lot of friends that use it & rave it up.
> 
> I had something else, a while back, that I bought, & had to get a refund, because it ruined my iLok dongle. It kept saying that my old dongle version was newer than it, but when it changed it, it killed my other plug-ins. So, I had to restore the old iLok & the new program was unusable. Then I've had newer ones, that they offer me for free & I need a separate dongle, but they want me to purchase it.
> 
> This new software stuff, is just ridiculous. You have to rent/lease. You have to buy a dongle disc to try out software for free.
> 
> What ever happened to just offering a product & buying it? & if you don't like it, sell it to someone else...
> 
> Rant over...
> 
> Sorry, I haven't heard of them. Do I have to buy an iLok dongle to try them out? ...



HA! Yes, the *dongle*! I was like, whaaaat? A dongle? Don't you just download it? That was exactly my concern - how do you download the software and at the end of they year, stop using their stuff? Does it just expire? I don't quite understand how it works yet. When I went to their site, you click on their link to learn about their $15 all access. The first thing, the VERY first thing it says is - you need the ILOCK DONGLE. Click here for the ilock. But I just want to learn more about how it works?


----------



## Dogs of Doom

it used to be, you downloaded an iLok manager. Now, they want you to order a thumb drive that's exclusive, for a 2nd level authentication. So, a few of the offers for "free" perks to my hardware aren't really free, if I have to buy the dongle thumbdrive for $25...

The way other programs work, are that, if it's a subscription, you log into the subscription every time you turn the plug-in on. Then, it checks for the auth# & if there are any updates/upgrades. If you miss a payment, the software no longer works...


----------



## Ghostman

The move to these cloud services, while the intention is great, and so is the flexibility, but it's like a crack dealer. Once you sign up for the service, you're hooked. Even if you stop paying, you realize you just lost all your work over the past how ever many months, because you no longer have access to the software. So, there's a feeling of dread to cancel your subscription. 

I'd rather pay $1000 up front, than $15 a month.


----------



## blues_n_cues

Coronado said:


> Hello recording chums! So, I've been dabbling with several different mixing/mastering type software packages (VSTs), and some have been pretty good. But they are not cheap by any means. Slate came out with their *bundle* approach, where for 15 bucks a month, you get all of their tools. Its a contract deal for a year, so you can either pay the 15 a month or like $180 for the year. Either way, just having access to some of their compressors, EQs, and reel-to-reel stuff would be pretty cool. Anyone looked into this yet? For $180 bucks (basically the price of an effects pedal) you get some pretty awesome tools. Most likely going to sign up, but wanted to see if anyone had heard of this, perhaps even used some of Slate's tools? Thanks!



I know this is a big thread (38 pages) but if you look through it & do some research you can find some great stuff for free or cheap.
Slate is great but is neither cheap or free.
if you want comps,eq,& R-T-R I can help you out easier. or.. you could just go buy Mixcraft Pro Studio & get a LOT of great stuff included w/ an easy DAW & LOADS of great virtual insts & amps.
(no,I'm not pushing a product but it is good) I have about 200 total freebies that are good too. it just takes time,effort,& loads of patience to find them.


----------



## Coronado

So recording volumes... how loud do you need to have the volume? I was recording my Mesa RA100 (mic'd to a 1960a with V30's). I pulled the mic back just a tad, found the right spot near the cone, and then pushed the volume to the get the tubes glowing, and recorded my track. Earlier, I had recorded the same track as I wanted to just capture a good version of the song end-to-end, and I did it at fairly lower volumes (just to capture the track, then delete it later after I recorded my final tracks). I noticed that there wasn't a big difference between the tracks with one recorded about 9 o'clock vs. the one where I cranked the amp to get the tubes glowing and the speakers moving. With master volume amps, and with the mic right up to the speakers, is there really a benefit of recording at louder volumes? I know with my Marshall 74' 1987 and my JCM800, I get the benefit of pushing the volume, but is there really any benefit of recording a loud master volume amp?


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

if you cant HEAR it sounding better than it seems like it doesnt matter. my dsl40c didnt seem to sound much if any better super cranked when i recorded that way vs much lower volume.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Coronado said:


> So recording volumes... how loud do you need to have the volume? I was recording my Mesa RA100 (mic'd to a 1960a with V30's). I pulled the mic back just a tad, found the right spot near the cone, and then pushed the volume to the get the tubes glowing, and recorded my track. Earlier, I had recorded the same track as I wanted to just capture a good version of the song end-to-end, and I did it at fairly lower volumes (just to capture the track, then delete it later after I recorded my final tracks). I noticed that there wasn't a big difference between the tracks with one recorded about 9 o'clock vs. the one where I cranked the amp to get the tubes glowing and the speakers moving. With master volume amps, and with the mic right up to the speakers, is there really a benefit of recording at louder volumes? I know with my Marshall 74' 1987 and my JCM800, I get the benefit of pushing the volume, but is there really any benefit of recording a loud master volume amp?


If the amp sounds sweet, then record it. I do think though, that sometimes you have an amp totally cranked, it sounds much different than the same, at a moderate volume that sounds sweet. But, recorded, it sounds different yet.

I like having my ISO box, because I can crank it to whatever sounds good & try different things & never have to worry about getting the noise in the environment.

I notice that the Kemper records at like -12db, or so & I'm thinking that, that's probably a good level to have your DAW set at, for recording.

I think mic placement & just having a sweet sound is more important than just blasting the amp & hoping for the best. If you have someone engineering, while you play & another guy w/ a headset positioning the mic, then you can do whatever, but, if you are doing it alone, a good set of headphones & an extension cord are important. Still though, it will be difficult to separate the cab & the headphone.

I find that 45º angles +/- seem to work well w/ recording the speaker. If close proximity, I like to have the mic at the edge of the dust cap (center dome) & then, tilt the mic 45º away from center, so you are getting the voice coil close, but off-axis & getting the paper cone, towards the outside on axis. I use large diaphragm condensors though. 

Another thing would to be having the mic away from the cab at a distance 6" or more, & at a 45º angle, so it's 6" out & 6" to the side of the voice coil & aim it across the voice coil to the furthest rim of the dust cap. Same thing when mic'ing from a distance...

Using multiple mic's is a bit more technical though, because then you are working w/ phase...


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

In digital you don't need to record super loud (DAW levels) at all. . .I've seen some recommend as low as -20 ( to allow for headroom/overs), and of course this gives you room to get louder in the mix. 

I thought I read those ISO boxes didn't work that well because you could hear the "boxiness" in the recording (i.e. you could tell it was recorded in a small space)?

Don't get me started on mic placement. You can drive yourself crazy. I've spent WEEKS in the past experimenting with moving mic around 1/8" forward, back, to the side, tweak mids up a bump, back down, then bass up a bump, etc. etc. Tiniest changes make a discernible difference when recording. There actually is a robot that can be placed in front of the amp and controlled remotely, holds the mic, and can move it around to different positions while you sit elsewhere and listen to how it sounds. I wanna say they cost somewhere in the $300-600 range.


----------



## Coronado

Great feedback, thanks guys. On mic placement, I use a TC Electronics 360 pedal and record a quick rhythm part and it runs through my speakers. I can then sit in front of either a 1x12 or 4x12 and find the best mic placement with headphones on. I found this little mic stand (they called it a desktop mic stand I believe) and it works really well for those lower speakers and 1x12's. Super easy to adjust and doesn't move at all when you finally find that spot. I sometimes battle with the telescopic mic stands where there is a bit of play and you have to account for that little bit of slack. Its kind of crazy when you think about it - you can have the greatest amp, guitar, gear, etc... ,but you could move that mic juuuuust a tad in the wrong direction and it sounds like you have a blanket over your amp. Or the other direction and its so bright and almost too thin. 

Thanks guys!


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

the robot. the robot is the answer. everybody buy the robot.


----------



## ColorfulMusic

I disagree with your "boxiness" quote. I have recorded both in ISO box and without it. With a mic up against cone it cannot tell difference.
Other thing about mic placement is you have to experiment for sure!! It takes effort and time. Currently I am using a SM57 strait at the center of cone about 3" away. And a condenser mic 3' away. I built a large enough ISO box to be able to do this.

I HAVE put SM57 at 45 degree angle, however the 57 is already a 'warm/dark' mic IMO, so I prefer to put it straight (perpendicular to cab).

As far as gain and volume levels of Amp...you have to play around and find sweet spot like DoD said.

Input vol on recording software...again you have to find what sounds best. Generally we set input so that levels are going into red but NEVER peaking.

All that said...I am NOT an expert. I have been recording this way for about a year now. I learn things all the time. Engineers are schooled in this stuff and have many many hours of training and experience. Fortunately with todays technology, us home recorders can do a lot of great things on our own. It will only improve!


----------



## Dogs of Doom

yeah, my condenser mic's are a lot more hi-fi than an SM57. 

Sennheiser Mk4___ 20 Hz - 20 kHz 
Shure SM57______ 40 Hz - 15 kHz

So, the SM57 filters a bit of the fizz off inherently. The MK4 captures the full frequency spectrum, so you have to think a little more meticulously on how to get a sweeter sound, w/o capturing the brittle harshness of the throat of the voice coil.

I also find that using my ribbon mic's that I have to use even more, because they tend to capture more of the high frequency, than the low end. According to the literature, the freq. range is 40hz-18khz, but the upper freq. is prone to boosting & distorting.






according to recording hacks, it says:



> stock Beyer ribbons have a large amount of overshoot distortion that rises with frequency,
> they fatigue with normal sound pressure levels (due to shallow & few corrugations, and…
> they have higher output level than with a fully corrugated ribbon, [because] the rigid ribbon moves pistonically, so generates current more uniformly & efficiently than a ribbon that moves naturally with the soundwave.
> So, one plus at the expense of two whopping big negatives.



although, w/ certain analogue devices, the "distortions" are not necessarily a bad thing, like they are w/ digital &/or transistor pushed distortion. It just means that you have to be more cognizant on how you use it, & if you get distortion, how to make it sound good. If the speaker ends up sounding like an angry bumble bee, you probably need to re-evaluate your technique/theory...

I've probably posted this here before, but here goes:





> Playing w/ new mics. Have my new ISO box set-up. Recording the tone of my Marshall JVM-1 w/ AVT 1x12 (greenback 25 watt) Strat w/ bridge humbucker - old strings. EV ND468 & Senheisser MK4. No effects, just panned 75% each mic.



So, there's a boxy iso cab... ...


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

ColorfulMusic said:


> I disagree with your "boxiness" quote. I have recorded both in ISO box and without it. With a mic up against cone it cannot tell difference.
> Other thing about mic placement is you have to experiment for sure!! It takes effort and time. Currently I am using a SM57 strait at the center of cone about 3" away. And a condenser mic 3' away. I built a large enough ISO box to be able to do this.
> 
> I HAVE put SM57 at 45 degree angle, however the 57 is already a 'warm/dark' mic IMO, so I prefer to put it straight (perpendicular to cab).
> 
> As far as gain and volume levels of Amp...you have to play around and find sweet spot like DoD said.
> 
> Input vol on recording software...again you have to find what sounds best. Generally we set input so that levels are going into red but NEVER peaking.
> 
> All that said...I am NOT an expert. I have been recording this way for about a year now. I learn things all the time. Engineers are schooled in this stuff and have many many hours of training and experience. Fortunately with todays technology, us home recorders can do a lot of great things on our own. It will only improve!




I was just saying what I read. . .have not tried a box myself. The size of the one you made might make all the difference in the world (for all I know). If you're able to put a mic 3' away, that probably means it's substantially larger than most of the ones out there (which seem to be built as small as they can and still fit a mic in there).


----------



## Ghostman

I stumbled into this interface the last few weeks. Tonight I get it set up for my home studio and try it out:

REM Fireface UFX & ADI-8 QS





The ADI-8 QS won't be used, just the Fireface UFX.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Pretty sweet... That's what PU uses in his studio. ...


----------



## Seventh Son

Does anyone know what special effect was used in the intro of this song? Is it chorus or flanger?


----------



## Ghostman

I set up my RME Fireface UFX, fired it up and got the signals flowing. Sounds great and it easily integrates with my DAW. Then I tried the Reverb and Delays built in, and got massive White noise. 

Did the Firmware updates, and still, no bueno. Nothing but noise. I've sent an email out to the manufacturer, so we'll see what's up. Maybe it's just a defective unit. My DAW Has all kinds of effects so it's not a complete loss if I can't get it working. Everything else is perfect.


----------



## Ghostman

Updated: Spent some time with RME tech support to get the internal FX to work. Never fixed it. Came down to a corrupt RAM chip and would require me to send the unit in. However, the only thing non-functional is the built in Reverb and Delay, which I will never use. 

I picked up a used MX300 effects processor this week, and had to rewire my setup. I had to add back into the fold the ADI-8 that I picked up with the Fireface UFX. After building some cables I did a dry run with the connections and routing last night:






Worked perfectly. I'm able to route the MX300 into the ADI-8 and run my signals through the ADAT connection, giving me another 8 channels of in/out to mess with. Then I swapped over the iPod connection into the ADI-8 which frees up two more mic/line level inputs of the Fireface.


----------



## ColorfulMusic

AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing said:


> I was just saying what I read. . .have not tried a box myself. The size of the one you made might make all the difference in the world (for all I know). If you're able to put a mic 3' away, that probably means it's substantially larger than most of the ones out there (which seem to be built as small as they can and still fit a mic in there).



To expand...if your mic is inches from speaker, IMO it shouldn't matter weather cab is in large room, small room or in a box. Mic would pick up the same sound that close to cone. Mic doesn't know where cab is.
On the other hand a mic that is footage away will make a difference in a room that is not 'dead' because you will pick up what ever is bouncing off the walls. I have done it that way but by hanging elevator blankets in garage and I think sounds the same as it does when in my ISO. Just my experience. I not an expert.
I think mic placement and mic type make a bigger difference.


----------



## el_bastardo

ColorfulMusic said:


> To expand...if your mic is inches from speaker, IMO it shouldn't matter weather cab is in large room, small room or in a box. Mic would pick up the same sound that close to cone. Mic doesn't know where cab is.
> On the other hand a mic that is footage away will make a difference in a room that is not 'dead' because you will pick up what ever is bouncing off the walls. I have done it that way but by hanging elevator blankets in garage and I think sounds the same as it does when in my ISO. Just my experience. I not an expert.
> I think mic placement and mic type make a bigger difference.


It all makes a difference. An iso box that doesn't let the speaker "breathe' properly (porting/vents) will sound dark and boxy pretty much no matter where you put the mic. Isoboxes take some thought...or luck. Close miking removes the room, and that's about it. The speaker enclosure, bet it a regular cab or isobox, matters.


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

what about a closet? I have a long closet with sliding doors that Ive recorded a dsl40c in, with the amp pointing along the long axis of the closet (i.e. several feet in front of/behind amp, next to none on the sides...maybe 6 inches on each side. had moving blankets hanging behind amp. had amp up pretty loud (red channel, volume at 7 or 8). Still didnt think it sound that different than at 2 or 3. Didnt necessarily find it "boxy" though.


----------



## bulldozer1984

A closet is actually a very common thing to do. Just make you sure you acoustically treat the boundary.


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

how much? there were clothes hanging and i had a sound blanket behind amp


----------



## ColorfulMusic

AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing said:


> how much? there were clothes hanging and i had a sound blanket behind amp


If it sounds good mess with it. What people say here isn't law!


----------



## Australian

ColorfulMusic said:


> If it sounds good mess with it. What people say here isn't law!




Thats right. And remember that those classic albums, they sometimes would take some days to experiment with the mics.
You have to know your own room. where to face the amp, how far the mic has to be. I personally don't like close mixing on the guitar cab. But that might just be my room that gives me the sound I want.

The moral of the story is: don't be lazy. Experiment, and note what works.


----------



## bulldozer1984

ColorfulMusic said:


> If it sounds good mess with it. What people say here isn't law!



It most certainly is law !


----------



## bulldozer1984

AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing said:


> how much? there were clothes hanging and i had a sound blanket behind amp



Just keep it in mind. If you’re not getting a good sound, it could be reflections off the walls. A small space like a closet is going to have all kinds of reflections going on. If you can’t hear them, all good. If you can, move your blanket etc. It will depend on a number of factors such as volume, type of mic etc. 

If it sounds good, it is good.


----------



## Australian

bulldozer1984 said:


> Just keep it in mind. If you’re not getting a good sound, it could be reflections off the walls. A small space like a closet is going to have all kinds of reflections going on. If you can’t hear them, all good. If you can, move your blanket etc. It will depend on a number of factors such as volume, type of mic etc.
> 
> If it sounds good, it is good.




Bulldozer, do you close mic your guitar cabs, on your recordings?


----------



## bulldozer1984

Aus, my recordings are a mixture of close mic SM57 and also SUHR Reactive Load + Ownhammer IR’s. 

I actually rely a lot more on the latter but mic up when I can as it’s more fun.


----------



## bulldozer1984

I should also add that when the guitars are isolated, I actually prefer the tones i get from the SUHR Reactive Load + Ownhammer IR’s. In the mix there is very little noticeable difference.


----------



## SmokeyDopey

Same here. When I put the 57 by itself I think to myself that I probably won't use that track, but when put up with the other mic(s) and the whole band, the 57 is pretty much a _necessity. _I would have the whole mix up and mute the 57 and it doesn't have that sharp bite and aggressive character the guitar "should" have. When I unmute the 57 it's like _that's _*the *classic rock guitar sound.

One of my favorite combos for a guitar cab is a SM57 and an MD421.


----------



## el_bastardo

SmokeyDopey said:


> One of my favorite combos for a guitar cab is a SM57 and an MD421.



Yes. Two 57s - on-axis and off-axis, right next to each other, works great too.

One should be able to get a good usable sound with one mic at a minimum. But using two and blending them to taste is usually just better.


----------



## Derek S

Great point about picking up rumble off the wall when the cab is in a tight space like a closet. You wouldn't think with close mic'ing that would matter and it took a long time before I figured out that unwanted source of muck was the friggin wall (I thought it was coming from the door at first) but through experiments learned the cab can't just be shoved in there tight against the rear wall. It doesn't take much though, mine is probably 10" off the wall and no issues. Of course if you have the space, centered in there would be ideal!

Here's my simple ghetto setup but it sure works well and I can CRANK my amps, get nice tight mic'd tones (rumble free lol) and then add ambience later in post.







I agree with elBastid and Smokey...a 57 off axis and ultra tight with another mic is a sweet way to get complex sounding mic'd tones...I have two of 'em just for this reason:


----------



## Trelwheen

This is a good place to rave about my latest mic for recording distorted electric guitar cabs. I've been using an AEA R84 for a few weeks now and it is flat out great for the purpose. Sometimes I pair it with an SM57 or 77, sometimes use it alone. The back side of the mic is brighter with less proximity effect so it's great when tracking the heavy palm mute chug chug stuff. Overall it is very smooth and does a great job of taming fizzy cabs. Sometimes a Beyer M160 gets the job but it's usually when I'm using a little less distortion.

I bet it'll make a good room mic for drums too.

Bottom line, the R84 is a great tool and worth the price of admission without a doubt.


----------



## Australian

Its all about the treatment of the room. We recorded in a studio a couple of weeks ago and everything sounded amazing. The bass tone was just right. Ok they used good mics-414's etc. but the room we recorded in had a great vibe.


----------



## J Saw

Could someone recommend a good plug and play mic for laptops(usb)? Just wanna record some single guitar tracks and possibly get better results than my samsung phone will offer. Thanks a bunch in advance.


----------



## Australian

J Saw said:


> Could someone recommend a good plug and play mic for laptops(usb)? Just wanna record some single guitar tracks and possibly get better results than my samsung phone will offer. Thanks a bunch in advance.



A USB Sure Sm57.


----------



## J Saw

Excellent. Thank you. Another newb recording question, will I need some kind of recording software in tandem with that mic? I'm trying to go no frills. Just want to accurately capture what my cab is putting out.


----------



## ampmadscientist

J Saw said:


> Excellent. Thank you. Another newb recording question, will I need some kind of recording software in tandem with that mic? I'm trying to go no frills. Just want to accurately capture what my cab is putting out.


The mic is going to preamp / A to D converter in digital recording. It is not unusual to use an analog preamp...
A good guitar amp mic would be

sennheiser 906.


----------



## Australian

J Saw said:


> Excellent. Thank you. Another newb recording question, will I need some kind of recording software in tandem with that mic? I'm trying to go no frills. Just want to accurately capture what my cab is putting out.



What do you use-Mac or PC?


----------



## J Saw

Looks like this might be more than I expected since I'll be using chromebook OS .
Not quite sure were to go from here. I'll have to find out more about CB operating systems first I guess. Hopefully it's doable.


----------



## 4Horseman

Australian said:


> What do you use-Mac or PC?


Hey Aus, do you have experience with either Universal Audio or Antelope? If so, which would you recommend? I'm wondering if these interfaces with built in DSP processing are worth it? Have you seen Antelope's new Discrete 4s? Thanks.
https://en.antelopeaudio.com/products/discrete-4/


----------



## Australian

4Horseman said:


> Hey Aus, do you have experience with either Universal Audio or Antelope? If so, which would you recommend? I'm wondering if these interfaces with built in DSP processing are worth it? Have you seen Antelope's new Discrete 4s? Thanks.
> https://en.antelopeaudio.com/products/discrete-4/



I don't know much about Antelope.
But it would take something off the planet to change me from UAD. The UAD plugins are fantastic.


----------



## 4Horseman

Australian said:


> I don't know much about Antelope.
> But it would take something off the planet to change me from UAD. The UAD plugins are fantastic.


Thanks. I was thinking about a twin duo mkII, but that demo for the Antelope sounds really good. A couple of those amp models sound inspiring. I could get the UAD for half the price though.


----------



## Australian

4Horseman said:


> Thanks. I was thinking about a twin duo mkII, but that demo for the Antelope sounds really good. A couple of those amp models sound inspiring. I could get the UAD for half the price though.



The UAD plugins are expensive, but they have specials each month. I dont know how good the Antelope plugins are.
But something to consider is how many plugins the unit can handle.
If you go with the UAD, and want to do full on song mixes you’d do better with a Quad or above.


----------



## Crunchifyable

What do you do when you have 1 SM57 and all you want is the sound you "hear" when you are off axis from the speaker?

I've tried the other approach, dialing in things with my head on axis, but the reality seems to be no one designs or listens to an amp like that. And taking the mic off axis usually produces a very effected dark sound. 

Right now i tend to put the SM57 right on the grill, near the center (maybe edge of dust cap...not as if I can see well without a flashlight) and it seems ok. I'm aware that dual mics sound best but my zoom h2 doesn't play nicely with other mics (usually has time sync issues unless I get a line out cable for it).

Closest I can get is near center, and add a LPF or high shelf after to take a little off after 6khz-10Khz.


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

Just about every distorted guitar tone, no matter how much I fuck with it (amp settings, mic angle/position/distance) ends up sounding like the lead guitar in the Beatles’ “Revolution” (not a good thing). What’s that about? I’ve sadly had way better results going direct into computer with the Logic amp/cab sims.


----------



## Crunchifyable

AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing said:


> Just about every distorted guitar tone, no matter how much I fuck with it (amp settings, mic angle/position/distance) ends up sounding like the lead guitar in the Beatles’ “Revolution” (not a good thing). What’s that about? I’ve sadly had way better results going direct into computer with the Logic amp/cab sims.



Might be your choice of amp, speaker. Some amps, cabs combos will never sound "right" no matter what you do. And some pedals sound terrible recorded. Greenbacks, amazing. Stock speakers, meh. Vintage 30 - some people love, I'd suspect for me I'd hate them for anything in standard tuning.

My Blackstar HT-5 sounds terrible recorded...nothing I can do to improve it, terrible "revolution" sound as you put it. My Class 5 was rubbish (all mud, no sparkle) too until it was modded.

Something as simple as an SM57 in the center right on the grill cloth is a good place to start. And listen as close to on axis as you can stand.

Beatles revolution is too much mids and overdriven mixing desk. If it sounds LITERALLY like that, then you have too much mids (like 1Khz is probably predominant, my guess). I assume you aren't overdriving your DAW (it's possible...but very nasty).

Look at the spectrograph (Frequency distribution) of your recorded guitar. and then compare to a recorded tone of something reference that you think should be comparable.

if the spectrographs are way off, then it's your amp EQ or the speaker choice.

If the spectrographs are similar but it still sounds like crud, then it's the choice of amp / distortion pedal / distortion gainstaging.


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

Thanks. It's a Gibson LP/Marshall DSL40c/SM57 (usually). DSL now has a Vet 30 in it, used to be stock, don't think I've recorded with the V30 yet. The only way I get rid of the "Revolution" quality is turning the drive down so low there's no sustain any more. I know the basics of recording so I don't overdrive my inputs (Apogee Duet).

The funny thing is I had a friend/colleague record us using same amp, settings, etc. . .his stuff sounded great (i.e. like it sounds to your ear in the room)! Better mics? Better room? Who knows.


----------



## Crunchifyable

AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing said:


> Thanks. It's a Gibson LP/Marshall DSL40c/SM57 (usually). DSL now has a Vet 30 in it, used to be stock, don't think I've recorded with the V30 yet. The only way I get rid of the "Revolution" quality is turning the drive down so low there's no sustain any more. I know the basics of recording so I don't overdrive my inputs (Apogee Duet).
> 
> The funny thing is I had a friend/colleague record us using same amp, settings, etc. . .his stuff sounded great (i.e. like it sounds to your ear in the room)! Better mics? Better room? Who knows.



Honestly, it's probably the speaker choices. And like you said, the amount of gain. Marshalls in particular do not do well in high gain settings, they usually don't have enough gain stages in their amps vs say a 5150, but pedals help. If the original was a 70/80, then that might be part of it. I never liked the 70/80 much...it's very bright and doesn't really compress. And will never sound much like a greenback, which I guess is the reference sound...everything else being a variation on it.


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

I just don't get why my friend's recording of my amp sounded so much better than anything I've ever done. I'm sure he had a better interface/ D/A than I do (he had a nice little studio setup), in addition to some different mics and a treated room. Unless he did some EQ or something on the way in that killed the nasty frequencies. I dunno. Maybe some day I'll mess with recording the amp again. 

I also had the same experience at a recent practice using a completely different Marshall head. . .we took the line out and ran it to a laptop feeding a bunch of headphones (drummer had an e-kit, everything was done "silently"). Same "Revolution" sound from that Marshall, no speaker! Hit a chord, just hear a wall of fizz with a pitch.


----------



## SmokeyDopey

Are you _absolutely _sure you're not clipping somewhere between mic pre/interface/computer?

Do ou have a sample of this particular sound you mention?


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

Nothing on hand at the moment for examples. . .maybe I have a test I didn't throw away I can upload. Will look later. I'm pretty sure I'm not clipping. My interface has its own "app" that shows the incoming levels, so you can tell when you're clipping.


----------



## bulldozer1984

The key to a good recorded electric guitar sound is more than just one thing. 

First of all, you need to crank the amp up a bit and get the speakers moving. 

Dial in a good sound in the room. 

Put a 57 right up on the grill cloth and about where the dust cap meets the cone. Put some headphones on and play until you have found a good spot. 

It is really is all you need to do. 

You can also put up a second mic that is a little bottom heavy like a ribbon and blend that in, but it’s not essential. A 57 in the mix is spot on.


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

My experience has been the sound in the room and what the mic hears are often two very different things. Headphones are ok but to me give a colored picture of what you're really getting.


----------



## bulldozer1984

Of course it’s going to sound different. You are close miking the cabinet. Do you listen to your amp with your ear up to the speaker ? No. 

If you want to hear the room tone, throw up a room mic ! But it won’t sound good in a mix.


----------



## Trelwheen

I used to struggle with fizzy high gain guitar tracks. The main things that seemed to get me on the right track were: cranking the amp, backing off on the gain and experimenting with mic placement and mic selection. I've been getting really good results lately with an sm57 or sm77 blended with either a beyerdynamic m160 or AEA R84. I use the back side of the R84 for this application, it's less boomy. I like to use 1073 pres also because they help tame the harshness, but sometimes need something a little cleaner like Blue Robbies. If I have to start cutting a lot with EQ I keep working on the above til I get closer to what I want


----------



## Crunchifyable

I record my "rough" riff ideas straight to my computer.

Then when I program some drums and try to get everything in daw... it comes out terrible! The playing...not the tone...

Because "metal" always has some weird swing to it, with hammer ons and crap, that's hard to just program to a 4/4 or 8/8. By the time I spend two hours trying to program a drum or a write down the riffs in guitar pro, it becomes robotic.

There's got to be a more organic way to have a "work flow".

Like this is the riff...a couple days after I wrote it and tried to start from scratch.


and this is it the day I wrote it, no drums, no click.


----------



## gearninja

@4Horseman 

Don't bother wit antelope, the cost is higher, they break down and you have to ship overseas to fix, big money! I have an Apollo duo and a quad satellite. I still run out of dsp but the plugs are kick ass!


----------



## Ghostman

Crunchifyable said:


> I record my "rough" riff ideas straight to my computer.
> 
> Then when I program some drums and try to get everything in daw... it comes out terrible! The playing...not the tone...
> 
> Because "metal" always has some weird swing to it, with hammer ons and crap, that's hard to just program to a 4/4 or 8/8. By the time I spend two hours trying to program a drum or a write down the riffs in guitar pro, it becomes robotic.
> 
> There's got to be a more organic way to have a "work flow".
> 
> Like this is the riff...a couple days after I wrote it and tried to start from scratch.
> 
> 
> and this is it the day I wrote it, no drums, no click.




That is the very problem I have too. I can noodle around, sans drums, get a killer riff going. Then I try to program some drums to start a decent project, and it sounds horrible.


----------



## Crunchifyable

Ghostman said:


> That is the very problem I have too. I can noodle around, sans drums, get a killer riff going. Then I try to program some drums to start a decent project, and it sounds horrible.



it's a nightmare. Sounds great when everything is intuitive. and then crap when I'm worrying about whether I'm supposed to be playing 8th or 16th notes.

I guess I gotta record to a click. Find a tempo, any tempo, and record to it.

It was easier years ago when I was in a band and the drummer came from drum corps and could basically drum anything. Trying to fit Iommi style trilling onto a grid...I guess it's easier to start with the drums...

Maybe that's my mistake.


----------



## gearninja

Crunchifyable said:


> I guess it's easier to start with the drums...
> Maybe that's my mistake.



I always start with a beat and find I have much better results. I build the beat as a song and then noodle till the right sound - riff fits. Then I'll add bass, keys, horns etc... then lyrics and vox. I don't know how many times I've tried the other way and it always fails. I even converted a die hard guitar player who always insisted that the riff has to come first. That is, until I showed him the results.

Doesn't mean it always works but 90% for sure!


----------



## 4Horseman

gearninja said:


> @4Horseman
> 
> Don't bother wit antelope, the cost is higher, they break down and you have to ship overseas to fix, big money! I have an Apollo duo and a quad satellite. I still run out of dsp but the plugs are kick ass!


Really, 6 dsp chips and you're running out? I guess I don't understand how guys are using them. Are you just recording direct and adding plugins while playing? Those UAD plugin files must be huge.


----------



## gearninja

4Horseman said:


> Really, 6 dsp chips and you're running out? I guess I don't understand how guys are using them. Are you just recording direct and adding plugins while playing? Those UAD plugin files must be huge.



You can record real time in the UA console which is amazing in itself. But, yes, you can add inserts on tracks in your daw tooo. I use heavy plugs like the 1073 for bass and vox which eats a lot of dsp especially when adding harmonies or recording double track guitars. My usual session is around 16 tracks depending?


----------



## 4Horseman

gearninja said:


> You can record real time in the UA console which is amazing in itself. But, yes, you can add inserts on tracks in your daw tooo. I use heavy plugs like the 1073 for bass and vox which eats a lot of dsp especially when adding harmonies or recording double track guitars. My usual session is around 16 tracks depending?


So, can the plugins be put in the daw and use the computer's cpu, or they are only stored in the dsp?


----------



## gearninja

4Horseman said:


> So, can the plugins be put in the daw and use the computer's cpu



No, they use dsp as inserts in the daw.


----------



## gearninja

What are you using now?


----------



## 4Horseman

Oh, I see. That's a good way to sell satellites.


----------



## gearninja

Yes and no, the Apollo's are basically one big heat sink lol. Not much room in there.


----------



## 4Horseman

gearninja said:


> What are you using now?


I was using an edirol fa-66 (firewire) into sonar 8.5. My old laptop got retired and my new one has no firewire. I don't feel like buying 100 dollars worth of adapters to make it work, plus I need a new daw now, so there's that to consider.


----------



## gearninja

Yeah that sucks, I don't know what's comparable but Reaper is solid. I only used cakewalk for a few months 18 years ago lol. I went from Acid pro to Protools 6,7,9 now I'm using Protools 12. Most go with the Focusrite 2i2 but it doesn't have the connectivity like your edirol. 6i6 might be a better option! I assume you're running mac?


----------



## Seventh Son

Why is it recommended to record at high volumes? I often hear how big bands record their albums with their amps cranked, but after having tried it myself, with my DSL15C's volume around 5, 6, and 8, I don't really hear a big difference. Sure, there is more compression, which evens out the recorded tone, but other than that, I could not detect any world-shattering tonal difference. Maybe I just haven't developed an ear for it. What do you guys think? How loud should an amp's volume be set for good recorded tone? One of the things that still fascinates me is how some bands achieve very bright yet fizz-free tones, such as this classic example. I've tried every EQ setting and microphone (SM57) position under the sun, and am still not getting completely similarly bright nor fizz-free recordings at home. Is this something that may have to do with volume? And, is there _any way_ that us amateurs can achieve a tone similar to the one on the isolated track with just a guitar and an amp?

_Addendum_: After years of searching for the tone that I have in my head, I've been able to approximate it, so I thought I'd share it here with you. On my DSL20CR, the settings are as follows.

Bass 5
Middle 8
Treble 2
Presence 7
Resonance: 5
Gain: 8
Reverb: 7
Volume: 2.5 (I know this is not as important as EQ, but it's good to know at exactly what volume I dialed in my ideal settings)

I've tried many different settings over the years, but keep coming back to the Bass 5 (sometimes 4), Middle 8, Treble 2, Presence 7 combination as the only one that sounds right to me. This may not be the same as the bright, aggressive reference tracks I would like to be able to recreate, so I can use them for contrast, but to _my_ ears, this is what_ my_ ideal tone sounds like. Dark but searing, with just enough bass to give palm muted notes a little bit of chunk and resonance. I personally like guitar tones that _tonally_ sit a bit more in the background of the mix and blend in to support the whole in a musical way. I also like to _mix_ guitars lower in the mix, with drums and vocals sitting on top, and bass somewhere above the guitars but below drums and vocals. I mic the guitars with an SM57 on-axis, just a little over 4 inches away from the speaker cloth, right where the dust cap and cone meet.


----------



## minerman

Seventh Son said:


> Why is it recommended to record at high volumes? I often hear how big bands record their albums with their amps cranked, but after having tried it myself, with my DSL15C's volume around 5, 6, and 8, I don't really hear a big difference. Sure, there is more compression, which evens out the recorded tone, but other than that, I could not detect any world-shattering tonal difference. Maybe I just haven't developed an ear for it.


The differences you are describing can be pretty subtle most of the time...It does take time to learn things dude, & in my experience once you "find" something like that, you have to stay up on it/keep doing it to be consistent...

In my humble opinion, a little twist of the volume knob cures some of the things you mention, like fizz...Most of the time, keeping the volume up & the gain down will help with fizz...You don't need as much gain as you think, & this is especially true if you layer/stack guitar tones...Everybody is different, & their expectations/goals are different too, so as usual, YMMV...I don't know how to describe it, but there's a certain point of loudness that is acceptable, & provides just the right amount of air being pushed into a mic _for me_...

There are a lot of variables like getting the power section of the amp working a bit...Different speakers react differently to different volume levels, along with different mics having different levels of air pushed into 'em...While not my favorite speaker, a V30 is a good example...They can sound good at about any level, but after they hit a certain point of being pushed, it's like they "come alive" & sound like a completely different speaker...

I've heard a few of your tones, & you have nothing to worry about man...They sound very good regardless of how you got there...Keep that in mind...

The bottom line is, are _you_ happy with the results you're getting, or not??? I'm assuming you're not 100% there, or you wouldn't keep asking about recorded tones & wanting to learn more...Welcome to the tone chase dude...I've been doing the real amp/cab/mic thing for a few years myself, & I love it...I'm very fortunate to have some pretty good gear, & some great friends who have helped me on my journey, suggesting different things for me to try... 

There are some great resources these days too, YT vids, tutorials, all kinds of ways to learn this stuff dude...Technology is your friend for all this...


----------



## Seventh Son

minerman said:


> The differences you are describing can be pretty subtle most of the time...It does take time to learn things dude, & in my experience once you "find" something like that, you have to stay up on it/keep doing it to be consistent...
> 
> In my humble opinion, a little twist of the volume knob cures some of the things you mention, like fizz...Most of the time, keeping the volume up & the gain down will help with fizz...You don't need as much gain as you think, & this is especially true if you layer/stack guitar tones...Everybody is different, & their expectations/goals are different too, so as usual, YMMV...I don't know how to describe it, but there's a certain point of loudness that is acceptable, & provides just the right amount of air being pushed into a mic _for me_...
> 
> There are a lot of variables like getting the power section of the amp working a bit...Different speakers react differently to different volume levels, along with different mics having different levels of air pushed into 'em...While not my favorite speaker, a V30 is a good example...They can sound good at about any level, but after they hit a certain point of being pushed, it's like they "come alive" & sound like a completely different speaker...
> 
> I've heard a few of your tones, & you have nothing to worry about man...They sound very good regardless of how you got there...Keep that in mind...
> 
> The bottom line is, are _you_ happy with the results you're getting, or not??? I'm assuming you're not 100% there, or you wouldn't keep asking about recorded tones & wanting to learn more...Welcome to the tone chase dude...I've been doing the real amp/cab/mic thing for a few years myself, & I love it...I'm very fortunate to have some pretty good gear, & some great friends who have helped me on my journey, suggesting different things for me to try...
> 
> There are some great resources these days too, YT vids, tutorials, all kinds of ways to learn this stuff dude...Technology is your friend for all this...



Thank you for the tips. I'll be experimenting with the volume thing more over the next few days to get a better understanding of how the tone changes with increasing volume.

I also need to experiment with using less gain and see if that gives the tone a little extra bite. I usually have the Gain at 5 on my DSL20CR, and at 4 on my 6100LM, which doesn't seem like a lot for old-school metal, but maybe it is for recording. I did notice that Judas Priest used surprisingly little gain on their classic recordings, even on the seemingly heavier ones, such as _Ram it Down_, _Defenders of the Faith, _and_ Screaming for Vengeance_, but when I listen to Maiden's albums (anything after their first album) they sound like they used quite a bit more gain then Priest.

As I wrote above, I've tried many different settings over the years, and the one setting that sounds right to my ears and that I keep combing back to is Middle 8 and Treble 2, Presence 2, with Bass somewhere between 2 and 4, depending on the amp. My DSL15C and DSL20CR are both dark amps, at least with Volume around 2. I wish I could figure out how to dial in the bright yet searing classic metal sounds of Maiden and Accept, for example, especially Maiden's _Piece of Mind_ album. As a listener and a guitar player, I don't particularly like the guitar tone on that album, but in terms of production, the way the guitars sit in the mix is amazing, which is really apparent on their covers of "I've Got the Fire" and "Cross Eyed Mary." I would like to be able to dial in those classic bright tones, if it is possible to get those tones without pedals, parametric EQ, or treble boosters. Until then, I'll stick with what seems to work for me and continue refining it.


----------



## Seventh Son

_Note. _I update this post periodically as new information becomes available and my settings improve. If you have any comments or suggestions, feel free to message me.

As a result of several years of research and trial and error, I have been able to approximate several iconic Maiden tones, including my favorite tone from the _Seventh Son of a Seventh Son_ album. The gear and settings are detailed below.

For JMP-1 users, the gentleman in the video below provides his settings, some of which were obtained directly from Dave's sound tech.



Additional useful resources for JMP-1 users can be found at http://www.sound-design-tonstudio-hof.de/Marshall JMP-1 Sound-Settings.pdf and at http://jmp-editor.mattzick.com/patches.html.

*Microphone placement: *According to this article, it sounds like Martin Birch used big wooden rooms and close-miking plus one or more room mics to capture the acoustics on the _Piece of Mind_ album. And according to this article, Martin birch used a close mic and a room mic (most likely an LDC) to record the guitars on _The Number of the Beast_. Note also that according to this footage from the _No Prayer for the Dying_ sessions, the direct mic you see on each cab appears placed where cap and cone meet and is possibly slightly angled toward the dust cap, but that could be an optical illusion due to the camera angle. I am not sure what model those mics are, but I get acceptable results with just an SM57, placed on-axis, on the grill cloth, at the point where the cap edge and cone meet, although I admit that capturing the studio tones is difficult. Just do the best you can to capture it.

To approximate Maiden's classic studio sounds, I believe that room miking with LDC's (in combination with a close mic) is the only way to get the exact studio sound as on some of the studio records (especially _Piece of Mind_ and _Powerslave_), but if you don’t have the luxury of a nice room and extra mics to experiment with, a little bit of reverb and/or delay will get you closer to the desired result.

Below are my DSL20HR settings for the _Piece of Mind_ and _Powerslave_ era tone. I used their live tone on _Live_ _After Death_ to approximate the settings.

*Piece of Mind*
Bass 10
Middle 3
Treble 8
Resonance 5
Presence 2
Gain 2 + a Tube Screamer with Gain at 8:30, Tone 12:00, Level 1:00 (The Maiden version of “I’ve Got the Fire” on the _Flight of Icarus_ single is a good reference for getting the gain setting right for the classic era). The key is to not dial in too much gain. Adrian's harmony line on the Trooper (on the right channel on the original recording) is a good indicator of how much (or just how little) gain is required to get this tone. In fact, the gain amount is extremely important, as too much gain will suppress the midrange too much and make everything sound smaller than it should be. The goal is to have just enough drive, mainly through the Tube Screamer, so that there is enough compression and sustain, but without introducing upper midrange fizz and noise to the signal.
The author of this webpage believes Maiden used a short delay on _Piece of Mind_. Personally, I don't hear a delay on the isolated tracks, but it's an idea worth exploring. I have an interview from the Guitar Player magazine from 1983, in which Adrian stated that all basics rhythm tracks are double tracked (each part is played twice). If you have a delay, great, but I don't think it is a requirement to get the sound. It is unclear whether the Marshalls Maiden used on _Piece of Mind_ had effects loops. Most likely, not, so try putting the delay in front of the amp. Some people also claim to hear a chorus on Piece of Mind. I don't hear it, but I suppose a very subtle chorus couldn't hurt.
Another thing the author of the aforementioned website believes is that no reverb was used on the guitars, but to my ears, the isolated tracks from _Piece of Mind_ sound like there is a bit of reverb. Most likely, it is room ambience captured by room mics, as Adrian stated in the aforementioned interview that they put the amps in a live corner of the room and put mics everywhere.
Maiden used the Marshall 4x12 cabs with stock Celestion G12-65 speakers on _Piece_ _of_ _Mind_. If you can't afford or don't have a Celestion Heritage G12-65, the G12T-75 will get you very close as well. Stay away from Vintage 30s, as they won't sound as open and have the right kind of bite for this sound. Plus, they exaggerate the upper mids, so the tone sounds uncontrollable and noisy even on moderate gain settings. The G12T-75 is much better at taking distortion and actually sounds stiffer/tighter in the bottom end.

*Live After Death*
Bass 4
Middle 3
Treble 6
Resonance 3
Presence 6
Volume 5
Gain 6

*Seventh Son of a Seventh Son*
I use a lot of reverb to simulate the natural acoustics of a professional studio.
Maiden also used chorus on almost everything. Dave sets it low for rhythm sounds, but uses the effect more prominently on certain melodies and harmonies. Of the pedals I have, I found the Boss CE-2W with both knobs at noon perfect for that kind of subtle effect. In the mix, the effect is subtle but noticeable in that it adds a nice sparkle to each note. For the more prominent chorus parts, the original Boss CE-2 with all controls at noon, or with the Depth knob possibly even higher, is perfect for the job. For delay, I find MXR Carbon Copy perfect, as it is very dark and unobtrusive. I set it to about 4 repeats, same rate as when counting 1-2-3-4, and with the Mix knob at 9 o'clock. Maiden's solos on "Black Bart Blues" are a good reference for the delay settings that I find just right. For the _Seventh Son of a Seventh Son_ sound, the delay effect is optional, as I personally don't hear it on the rhythm parts, except on solos, but if you like it always on, it's certainly an option, just keep in mind that it probably won't be true to the original. But I'll let your ears decide.
Suggested settings:
Resonance 10
Presence 5
Bass 10
Middle 4
Treble 3
Gain 6

*Somewhere in Time*
You'll definitely want to have delay on all the time. Again, the MXR Carbon Copy is perfect for this. As before, I would set it to about 4 repeats, same rate as when counting 1-2-3-4, with the Mix knob at 9 o'clock, Regen just past 9 o'clock, and Delay around just before noon. You'll also need a chorus that's on all the time. The original Boss CE-2 with all controls at noon will give you instant _Somewhere in Time_ chorus sound. To my ears, it also sounds like they used a phaser on certain melodies and solos.
Suggested settings:
Resonance 5
Presence 10
Bass 6
Middle 8
Treble 4
Gain 6


----------



## GrahamL

Lets hear you guys doing some Maiden gentlemen... its been a while


----------



## Seventh Son

GrahamL said:


> Lets hear you guys doing some Maiden gentlemen... its been a while


Strictly for the purposes of demonstrating the settings I provided above , here's a quick demo. It's one of my all time favorite songs and one of the classiest metal songs ever written. A very difficult solo to play. This was a quick take, very spontaneous. No processing whatsoever was applied. The only effect I used is the DSL20CR's built-in reverb. Dave's guitar is panned left, and Adrian's right.


----------



## minerman

Shitty little clip of my new amp...The guitars are a little fizzy, but I already know how to get rid of that...I just got the amp a few days ago & I really, really like it...



Both guitars are an Ibanez RG350 (Duncan Custom Custom bridge p'up) > Chupacabra > 4x12 (Greenback) > Audix i5...

The only post-processing on the guitars is some reverb I added in the daw...


----------



## Seventh Son

minerman said:


> Shitty little clip of my new amp...The guitars are a little fizzy, but I already know how to get rid of that...I just got the amp a few days ago & I really, really like it...
> 
> 
> 
> Both guitars are an Ibanez RG350 (Duncan Custom Custom bridge p'up) > Chupacabra > 4x12 (Greenback) > Audix i5...
> 
> The only post-processing on the guitars is some reverb I added in the daw...



It sounds really good. The style reminds me of Queensryche.

What EQ settings did you use? By the way, if you're struggling with fizz, Andy Sneap recommends putting the mic on-axis, at the center of the dust cap, then moving the mic one inch off the speaker cloth and just under an inch away from the center. I tried it and it works very well and still gives a good representation of the amp’s sound in the room. I've also heard many great recordings that were achieved with the mic right on the cloth, but I don't think you can ever go wrong with backing it off just an inch.


----------



## minerman

Seventh Son said:


> It sounds really good. The style reminds me of Queensryche.
> 
> What EQ settings did you use? By the way, if you're struggling with fizz, Andy Sneap recommends putting the mic on-axis, at the center of the dust cap, the moving the mic one inch off the speaker cloth and just under an inch away from the center. I tried it and it works very well and still gives a good representation of the amps sound in the room. I've also heard many great recordings that were achieved with the mic right on the cloth, but I don't think you can ever go wrong with backing it off just an inch.


Thanks man, Gain 1 starts making it a bit fizzy around "8" or so on the dial, especially using the "Era" switch to the left (which is supposed to be a modern sound, right is 80's, & centered is basically plexi)...I just need to dial the gain back a bit, & get the master up a little more, that should take care of it...Either that, or move the mic slightly away from the cap to a darker position, maybe a bit of both...

The values are where the knobs are on the dial, not doing the "clock" thing...

Resonance: 2
Presence: 8
Bass: 8
Middle: 6
Treble: 6
Master: 4
Gain 2: 2
Gain 1: 8
Focus: OFF
ERA: R/80's
Bright 2: L
Bright 1: C/OFF
Pussy Trimmer: 5
I was using an Ibanez RG350 with a Duncan SH11 (Custom Custom) in the bridge, straight into the amp, into a 4x12 w/Greenback speaker, with an Audix i5 about where the cap meets the cone & about 1/2" off the grillcloth...

Thanks again...


----------



## Seventh Son

minerman said:


> Thanks man, Gain 1 starts making it a bit fizzy around "8" or so on the dial, especially using the "Era" switch to the left (which is supposed to be a modern sound, right is 80's, & centered is basically plexi)...I just need to dial the gain back a bit, & get the master up a little more, that should take care of it...Either that, or move the mic slightly away from the cap to a darker position, maybe a bit of both...
> 
> The values are where the knobs are on the dial, not doing the "clock" thing...
> 
> Resonance: 2
> Presence: 8
> Bass: 8
> Middle: 6
> Treble: 6
> Master: 4
> Gain 2: 2
> Gain 1: 8
> Focus: OFF
> ERA: R/80's
> Bright 2: L
> Bright 1: C/OFF
> Pussy Trimmer: 5
> I was using an Ibanez RG350 with a Duncan SH11 (Custom Custom) in the bridge, straight into the amp, into a 4x12 w/Greenback speaker, with an Audix i5 about where the cap meets the cone & about 1/2" off the grillcloth...
> 
> Thanks again...


Thank you. Your recording sounds exactly how I would expect it to sound with those settings. If I were you, I’d keep the mic where it is. Any further away from the center and you’ll get not only a darker tone, but also a boxier, honkier tone. I played around with a low pass filter yesterday, low-passing anything above 10,000kHz and it worked great to remove the remaining fizz. You could go even lower than that. Basically, go as low until you start hearing a change, and then back off just a little. That should do it in post-production. I’ve learned to not move away from the center too much, as that can lead to


----------



## minerman

Seventh Son said:


> Thank you. Your recording sounds exactly how I would expect it to sound with those settings. If I were you, I’d keep the mic where it is. Any further away from the center and you’ll get not only a darker tone, but also a boxier, honkier tone. I played around with a low pass filter yesterday, low-passing anything above 10,000kHz and it worked great to remove the remaining fizz. You could go even lower than that. Basically, go as low until you start hearing a change, and then back off just a little. That should do it in post-production. I’ve learned to not move away from the center too much, as that can lead to


Thanks man, I try to get the sound right at the source, there's nothing wrong with a little eq, but I try to get it where I want without any of that...

I did some more test recordings today, & I've pretty much got the fizz dialed out, but ran out of time...I'll post some more clips tomorrow...All I did was lower the gain a tad, got the master up to about 5 or 6 & that seemed to take care of it...

The amp is brand new too, I haven't had it a week yet, it got here last Wed...While it won't be a huge difference, when it all breaks in & settles a bit, it should get a little better...

How long have you been recording dude??? This fall will make 10 years since I started down that road...It doesn't seem like it's been that long, but it has...

Thanks again...


----------



## Seventh Son

minerman said:


> Thanks man, I try to get the sound right at the source, there's nothing wrong with a little eq, but I try to get it where I want without any of that...
> 
> I did some more test recordings today, & I've pretty much got the fizz dialed out, but ran out of time...I'll post some more clips tomorrow...All I did was lower the gain a tad, got the master up to about 5 or 6 & that seemed to take care of it...
> 
> The amp is brand new too, I haven't had it a week yet, it got here last Wed...While it won't be a huge difference, when it all breaks in & settles a bit, it should get a little better...
> 
> How long have you been recording dude??? This fall will make 10 years since I started down that road...It doesn't seem like it's been that long, but it has...
> 
> Thanks again...


I agree with you about getting it right at the source. I first start with the amp's settings until it sounds good to me. Then I look at mic placement. Today I rerecorded the same clip that I posted above, where I moved the mic a little closer to where the dust cap meets the cone and the result was closer to what you get from applying a low pass filter around 10kHz. After about two years of experimenting, I am convinced the the best place to record a speaker is somewhere just off-center, close the where the dust cap meets the cone. And as you said, more volume also helps get rid of the fizz, so it may not be necessary to go far from the center at all, as long as you set the amp loud enough. Andy Sneap recommends just under an inch off-center, which seems just about the right amount, but I would say, if you want to keep it simple, you probably can't go wrong with just placing the mic right where the dust cap and the cone meet.

I've been experimenting with recording (only guitars) for about two years. Long journey with many successes and failures, but I think I've figured this thing out. It was a long journey because I also had to learn the hard way how easily deceived our hearing can be, where you end chasing a moving target that you yourself created. I've tried every conceivable microphone placement, and at one point even thought that the best tones are near the speaker edge, but then realized I had gone too far off, so I scrapped that and started from the beginning. In the end, it seems that the standard advice of placing the mic either at the center or somewhere near the center is what most people recommend for a good reason. Another thing I had to teach myself is to stop overanalyzing my recordings and instead to focus on the overall tone. When you listen too closely, you start hearing things that aren't an issue at all and then end up trying to fix what's not broken.

I think the safest way to record guitars is to go for a classic rock tone, a nice, warm, midrange driven tone, even if you play metal, and tweak it to taste from there, because I've noticed that even some of the heavier bands like Maiden and Priest didn't use all that much gain in the '80s, and the guitar tones on their records are nothing crazy, but they just work because they make sure the fundamentals are in place.


----------



## minerman

I agree, there's a lot of trial/error, but once something "clicks" it usually stays...I used ampims up until about 5 years ago & made the jump to real amps...I have a great online buddy who has helped me through this, & I could never have gotten this far without him, he's just gifted with this stuff...

I hope to make the jump to real drums one day, but I'll have to get another place before I could do that, I'm out of room & need a bigger boat...lol...

Speaking of mic placement, I used a flashlight & a sharpie to mark the center of each speaker in my 1960A...This make is really quick-n-easy to find the sweet spot...One might not wanna do that to a good cab, but this is just a 4x12 I bought for $300 do to things like this, so it ain't gonna hurt anything at all...
I call it my "bastard cab" because of the speakers...





You can't see the bottom marks in the upper pic, but you can see the top 2:





I have 4 different speakers in this cab (labeled above), so there are lots of options with just moving the mic to a different speaker, or blend...Sounds crazy, but it works...My online buddy I mentioned suggested this, & like always, he was right...I used this cab in a gig last month, & it sounded pretty good...I thought it'd be weird, but it actually wasn't...I also have an EVH 5150 III 4x12 with the EVH branded greenbacks, & it's a great cab IMO...

Oh yeah, I'd never take a sharpie to my EVH cab...

I built this ISO cab last September, it does ok, especially compared to the first one I built, but it's still not like having an amp in the room...
ISO cab & Yamaha e-kit:










Here's my setup about 3 years ago...I don't have any recent pics, all those amps & the shitty Randall ISO cab are gone...I do have a Mini Jubilee & just got the Ceriatone Chupacabra 50 last week though...





If you think you'd like to hang out with a bunch of tone chasers (we call 'em Tonetards), come check out our forum...We were all at another forum, with a thread started out as "Guitar Tone To Die For", then eventually changed the name to "The Tone Thread"...The thread started in 2012 & got up to about 1,300 posts...At our new place, "The Tone Thread" is about 130 pages since it launched a little over a year ago...

In that particular thread, shitty playing don't matter (which saves my ass...), & all we focus on is the tone...Lots of great folks over there & there's all kinds of help, not just in guitar tone, but all kinds of recording help/info...Come check us out dude...
Here's the link:
*The Recording Rebels*


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Here's an article Sweetwater just put out, about micing a cabinet. Take what you want from it, it's free... ...

https://www.sweetwater.com/insync/top-10-tips-miking-amp-cabinets/


----------



## LyseFar

Just having sold my Fryette Sig:X and having my JMP Super Lead away to the tech for re-capping/tubing, I was earlier this year left with only my basement "rehearsal amp"; a Fender Blues Deluxe FSR equipped with a Jensen P12Q speaker. Great amp but I had at that moment never tracked with it before. So I thought lets give it a try. I set up the amp with a SM57 and into my Steinberg UR22 mk2 interface into Cubase Elements - cranked the amp and put on a few effects (TC Booster + Linedriver & Distortion, Jam Fuzzphrase (for lead stuff), Dunlop 95q wah and a memoryman) and tracked our song "Not Alone". The guitars used is a Fender US Lonestar strat and dubbed with a Gibson Les Paul Studio. I was surprised how well it turned out (at least in my own opinion) with that amp. Here is the guitar tracks isolated and not mixed at all. There are some pauses here and there as it is just the full tracks not edited.



Below is a link to the final song as it ended up after mixing (It is on Spotify so it is only a link as it not allowed to embed media from there I think).

https://open.spotify.com/track/7kliZPzMMopoYo3M8M3klu?si=tcmZLpKlTpOQSSQ2lEgUpQ


----------



## LyseFar

Was in the studio last night tracking on my Super Lead. It is only rythmguitar but I thought it could be funny to post the setup and settings in general:

Amp:
Marshall JMP Super Lead

Mics:
SM57 and a Samson C01 for room/ambience,






Effect:
TC Booster + Linedriver & Distortion (Set as booster)




Interface:
Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 2nd Gen with Focusrite OctoPre ADAT extension.

DAW:
Cubase Elements. No post-processing.

Guitar:
Fender US Lonestar strat neck pickup (late 90's).

Settings:
Left: Channels linked both on volume 7, presence: 8, bass: 3, middle: 6, treble: 5
Right: Volume I channel only with volume on 8, presence 8, bass: 4, middle: 6, treble: 5
Marshall 1960AX cab.

Here is the clip:


It's kind of an old school approach and the sound is dirty and the tubes are cooking - but I think it will set fine in the final mix - time will tell. It's all about sonic space.
Feel free to comment - I take critisism very well


----------



## Seventh Son

LyseFar said:


> Was in the studio last night tracking on my Super Lead. It is only rythmguitar but I thought it could be funny to post the setup and settings in general:
> 
> Amp:
> Marshall JMP Super Lead
> 
> Mics:
> SM57 and a Samson C01 for room/ambience,
> View attachment 51430
> 
> 
> View attachment 51431
> 
> 
> Effect:
> TC Booster + Linedriver & Distortion (Set as booster)
> 
> View attachment 51438
> 
> 
> Interface:
> Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 2nd Gen with Focusrite OctoPre ADAT extension.
> 
> DAW:
> Cubase Elements. No post-processing.
> 
> Guitar:
> Fender US Lonestar strat neck pickup (late 90's).
> 
> Settings:
> Left: Channels linked both on volume 7, presence: 8, bass: 3, middle: 6, treble: 5
> Right: Volume I channel only with volume on 8, presence 8, bass: 4, middle: 6, treble: 5
> Marshall 1960AX cab.
> 
> Here is the clip:
> 
> 
> It's kind of an old school approach and the sound is dirty and the tubes are cooking - but I think it will set fine in the final mix - time will tell. It's all about sonic space.
> Feel free to comment - I take critisism very well



That sounds great. Those Lonestar Strat's are some of my favorite strats of all time. Still remember the day I played one back in the '90s.

Through experimentation with mic positioning, I today learned about the importance of backing off the mic. I see that you did the same, even more than I did (I live in an apartment and can't afford to crank the amp). Otherwise, I get a lot of bass buildup that is not noticeable in isolated tracks, but really muddies up everything when embedded in a mix. I also learned just how important the midrange is. Every time I think I've figured out how to get my tone on tape, I realize I still have too much fizz and not nearly enough mids, so now I place the SM57 pretty much at the edge of the speaker and even tilt it away from the center to further shut out the fizz coming from there. When I'm recording my DSL20CR at home, the master volume is on 2.5 and my settings are already pretty mid-heavy.
Bass: 2
Middle: 8
Treble: 2
Presence: 2

Do you think this is a workable volume, or is this why I have to move the mic so far away from the center to combat the fizz at the beginning of the recording chain? I can't believe how many pros recommend putting the mic close to the grille and either dead center, or somewhere around there. What's your take on this?


----------



## LyseFar

Seventh Son said:


> That sounds great. Those Lonestar Strat's are some of my favorite strats of all time. Still remember the day I played one back in the '90s.
> 
> Through experimentation with mic positioning, I today learned about the importance of backing off the mic. I see that you did the same, even more than I did (I live in an apartment and can't afford to crank the amp). Otherwise, I get a lot of bass buildup that is not noticeable in isolated tracks, but really muddies up everything when embedded in a mix. I also learned just how important the midrange is. Every time I think I've figured out how to get my tone on tape, I realize I still have too much fizz and not nearly enough mids, so now I place the SM57 pretty much at the edge of the speaker and even tilt it away from the center to further shut out the fizz coming from there. When I'm recording my DSL20CR at home, the master volume is on 2.5 and my settings are already pretty mid-heavy.
> Bass: 2
> Middle: 8
> Treble: 2
> Presence: 2
> 
> Do you think this is a workable volume, or is this why I have to move the mic so far away from the center to combat the fizz at the beginning of the recording chain? I can't believe how many pros recommend putting the mic close to the grille and either dead center, or somewhere around there. What's your take on this?



Thank you. I don't know much about the DSL20CR but I have experimented a bit with the classic channel on a DSL50 head (not my own) and found that I had to run the gain quite low and also, as you describe, a lot of mids.
Never recorded it though. As the DSL50 still is in our studio I would very much like to try with the settings and volume you describe to do it and then post my results. 
I don't think that you should be too afraid if you encounter fizz on your recordings. My experience on this tells me that every amp has a problem area or two regarding certain frequencies and that can easily be fixed in post-processing. The fizz area is in the 5-10k area. 
Here is a shot of the eq of another recording where there is a bass cut and an anoying resonance I had to remove at 350 hz. I have also found that there nearly always is a problem area around 5k.




Regarding the mic placement I think you get a bit closer to the actual amp sound with the mic backed off a bit - especially when recording at high volume. Also a room mic helps on this - but when you do this you must be sure to check the phasing on your tracks and also maybe in post-processing set a time-shift to prevent the natural reverb/delay effect. Unless thats what you want of course.


----------



## Seventh Son

LyseFar said:


> Thank you. I don't know much about the DSL20CR but I have experimented a bit with the classic channel on a DSL50 head (not my own) and found that I had to run the gain quite low and also, as you describe, a lot of mids.
> Never recorded it though. As the DSL50 still is in our studio I would very much like to try with the settings and volume you describe to do it and then post my results.
> I don't think that you should be too afraid if you encounter fizz on your recordings. My experience on this tells me that every amp has a problem area or two regarding certain frequencies and that can easily be fixed in post-processing. The fizz area is in the 5-10k area.
> Here is a shot of the eq of another recording where there is a bass cut and an anoying resonance I had to remove at 350 hz. I have also found that there nearly always is a problem area around 5k.
> 
> View attachment 51507
> 
> 
> Regarding the mic placement I think you get a bit closer to the actual amp sound with the mic backed off a bit - especially when recording at high volume. Also a room mic helps on this - but when you do this you must be sure to check the phasing on your tracks and also maybe in post-processing set a time-shift to prevent the natural reverb/delay effect. Unless thats what you want of course.


Thank you. I compared my track with a reference track I've been using as a rough guide on what kind of sound I wanted, and I noticed that I can get very close to it by further raising mids in Garageband. So, it appears I need still more mids and less fizz. What I am going to do, is pin mids on my amp at 10, instead of 8, which I thought was already quite a lot but necessary to get anything semi-recordable on tape. I realize that I can fix many things in post-processing, but I'd like to get the tone right at the source. It's just crazy how the sound that I would like to be able to reproduce appears to have almost no bass, no highs, and is nothing but mids. Marshall really should retune its amps to give them a bigger range, as the most interesting and useful metal tones are actually found on the extreme side of EQ settings. Here's a sample of the reference track. The tones I find interesting are at 1:00 (verse) and 2:20 (chorus). It's a slightly brighter and more mid-heavy tone than I like to use, but I'd like to be able to recreate it, as many '80s bands used this tone as their starting point. It's a very classic tone.



How much of a difference did the room mic make in your case, and what were the biggest differences? Corollary question: Do you think it is necessary to use a room mic for good results?


----------



## LyseFar

Seventh Son said:


> Thank you. I compared my track with a reference track I've been using as a rough guide on what kind of sound I wanted, and I noticed that I can get very close to it by further raising mids in Garageband. So, it appears I need still more mids and less fizz. What I am going to do, is pin mids on my amp at 10, instead of 8, which I thought was already quite a lot but necessary to get anything semi-recordable sounds on tape.
> 
> How much of a difference did the room mic make in your case, and what where the biggest differences? Corollary question: Do you think it isnecessary to use a room mic for good results?



As we are a poor band trying to get by as cheap as possible, we track our stuff ourself and then we go somewhere to get a pro to mix it. The guy/studio we work with (who is absolutely top shelf in my opinion) wants as much as possible to work with and therefore we always add some room ambience mics on guitars and drums. We were mixing there friday and he was very pleased with our ambience recordings and used them.
That said - it is totally possible to make a great guitar recording with only one mic.

Edit: I just heard the reference tracks. I will try to get the DSL50 to sound like that. Lot of reberb - Lexicon -> 224xl or something. Great sounding.


----------



## Seventh Son

LyseFar said:


> As we are a poor band trying to get by as cheap as possible, we track our stuff ourself and then we go somewhere to get a pro to mix it. The guy/studio we work with (who is absolutely top shelf in my opinion) wants as much as possible to work with and therefore we always add some room ambience mics on guitars and drums. We was mixing there friday and he was very pleased with our ambience recordings and used them.
> That said - it is totally possible to make a great guitar recording with only one mic.
> 
> Edit: I just heard the reference tracks. I will try to get the DSL50 to sound like that. Lot of reberb - Lexicon -> 224xl or something. Great sounding.


I think the reverb on the isolated track is natural. Martin Birch loved using big wooden rooms and multiple room mics to get a sound like that. Maybe that’s what enhances the midrange and treble on those tracks.

Here’s another similar-sounding isolated track that I find interesting. It’s also mostly mids and treble.

I’ll try recording my amp with mids maxed out right after breakfast. I’ll also try turning Bass down to zero, as I’ve noticed that to get that sound in post-processing, I also have to apply some low cut.


----------



## Seventh Son

LyseFar said:


> As we are a poor band trying to get by as cheap as possible, we track our stuff ourself and then we go somewhere to get a pro to mix it. The guy/studio we work with (who is absolutely top shelf in my opinion) wants as much as possible to work with and therefore we always add some room ambience mics on guitars and drums. We was mixing there friday and he was very pleased with our ambience recordings and used them.
> That said - it is totally possible to make a great guitar recording with only one mic.
> 
> Edit: I just heard the reference tracks. I will try to get the DSL50 to sound like that. Lot of reberb - Lexicon -> 224xl or something. Great sounding.


I tried my idea and it worked! These are the DSL20CR settings.
Bass 0
Middle 10
Treble 0
Presence 3
Resonance 0 (or to taste, if you have a combo)
Gain 5
Microphone very close to edge, tilted about 45˚ away from speaker center, about an inch away from the grille.
The settings may seem extreme, but remember that most guys in the '80s pushed their amps with Tubescreamers, treble boosters, and parametric EQs, often with two or more of those on this list at the same time.


----------



## LyseFar

Seventh Son said:


> I tried my idea and it worked! These are the DSL20CR settings.
> Bass 0
> Middle 10
> Treble 0
> Presence 3
> Resonance 0 (or to taste, if you have a combo)
> Gain 5
> Microphone very close to edge, tilted about 45˚ away from speaker center, about an inch away from the grille.
> The settings may seem extreme, but remember that most guys in the '80s pushed their amps with Tubescreamers, treble boosters, and parametric EQs, often with two or more of those on this list at the same time.



Great news. I'm looking forward to try out the dsl50 to see how it behaves.


----------



## LyseFar

.


----------



## steveb63

Happy Sunday everyone. 

I have a quick question for you experienced home recording enthusiasts, I did a search but the results were kinda confusing. 

Going from my d.i. output on my Marshall Origin to input on my Boss digital recorder.
Instrument or speaker cable?

Thanks in advance for any help 
Steve


----------



## Dogs of Doom

steveb63 said:


> Happy Sunday everyone.
> 
> I have a quick question for you experienced home recording enthusiasts, I did a search but the results were kinda confusing.
> 
> Going from my d.i. output on my Marshall Origin to input on my Boss digital recorder.
> Instrument or speaker cable?
> 
> Thanks in advance for any help
> Steve


instrument...


----------



## steveb63

Dogs of Doom said:


> instrument...


Thank you sir.
Much appreciated. 
Steve


----------



## Kim Lucky Day

The DAW I use is Magix Samplitude Music Studio 2016. Has a ton of features for the incredibly low price I paid for it ($75) and while I have only been recording for 3 years, it pretty much does what I want it to. 

Except for one key thing- I cannot figure out how to fade out a recording. I know how to fade out individual tracks but this can be hit or miss if trying to do so in unison. It seems if a track is hotter than the others in the mix, it is the last track to fade out and it sounds off. I would think there has to be a way that you can select all tracks and fade them all but I can't quite figure it out. 

Not sure if anyone else uses this DAW or if perhaps other programs use a similar option that I may be able to figure out how to apply in my own program...

Thanks in advance for your help!


----------



## Dogs of Doom

fadeout can be done on the mastering end of things...

Once you have your song mixed down to stereo, then do your fade.


----------



## Kim Lucky Day

I figured this would be done in the mastering process but I can't figure out _how..._


----------



## SmokeyDopey

Yep, like DoD said. When the mix is done, export or bounce the the whole thing as a stereo track, then open a new project just with that stereo track and apply the fade there.

Or you can automate the master fader in the mix project.
I've never used that DAW so I don't know what options are more practical.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

do the mixdown & save the track. Open the track in your DAW as a music file. Choose the spot, where you want your fade to start & then highlight the file from that point, until the end of the track:




choose fade out:




finished fade slope:




then save again.

You can fade & undo it, if you don't like the fade. I suggest not saving over the original unfaded file, but choose save as & rename it as filename-faded. Always keep the original file. Then you have options later, if, for some reason you decide to do something different...


----------



## SmokeyDopey

Dude, nice. Screenshots and everything.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

SmokeyDopey said:


> Dude, nice. Screenshots and everything.


different program, but, I imagine that there's similar functions in Magix & hopefully, he should be able to get the gist & figure it out...


----------



## Kim Lucky Day

Never thought of importing the finished mp3 file back into my DAW and fading this way... Excellent advice, thank you!


----------



## Blackeyes

minerman said:


> I've got a question for you guys that use an e-kit for recording....How well do the hi-hats do on the different articulations triggering a vsti (EZ Drummer for example)...Do the lower-end/cheaper kits trigger/work pretty decent on the hi-hat articulations???
> 
> I'm thinking pretty hard about buying an e-kit to record my midi drums, & ditch the long, tedious process of programming 'em...I know I'll have to go in & fix a lot of things (as I'm no drummer...sure, I can play drums, but not really _well_...), but I should be able to get a basic beat to a song down a lot faster & easier than trying to get the software/loops to "fit"....
> 
> For example, say EZ Drummer's hi-hats have 5-6 articulations, does the e-kit's hi-hat do a pretty realistic job triggering the different articulations???? I'm sure the higher-end/more expensive e-kits do, but remember, I'm really not a drummer, & don't wanna spend a fortune on an e-kit....
> 
> 
> 
> Any help here Marshall heads????


We switched to SD3 last year after running Addictive drums for a bit, its a huge step up from any angle. We fought real drums for years, the room sound we have is not so good and we could hear it in everything we did once we learned how to recognize it. Using Roland V drums into SD3, the drum sounds we are getting are stunning. There is no way we could have pulled these sounds off with an analog kit. You can tailor the velocities any way you like of any part. Its really worth a lot more than it cost's, we have not wished we could "make it a little better" since my drummer got his kit put together from the available pieces and got them setup the way he likes them. Its actually easy to get too much of a good thing with it. 
Best money we ever spent for recording


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Kim Lucky Day said:


> Never thought of importing the finished mp3 file back into my DAW and fading this way... Excellent advice, thank you!


hint: you should never save to mp3, unless it's for streaming only. You obliterate the frequencies in a destructive way that only compounds every time you save & resave. This is why you start hearing modulation in the treble a couple generations down.


----------



## Trelwheen

I'd like to cast another vote for a recording sub-forum.


----------



## Seventh Son

Everyone is saying is that the key to good guitar recordings is to get it right at the source. When I do that, where the amp sounds good in the room from about six feet and raised above the floor to, roughly, ear level, and then stick an SM57 about one inch off the grille, roughly in the middle of the cone (not dust cap) on my DSL15C, I get a lot of proximity effect and a recorded tone that is woofy and flat sounding. How did so many bands record such great, high-energy guitar tones by (supposedly) doing the same thing, but every time I try it, I get mediocre results? I am really curious how they were able to deal with all that bass build-up, because that's pretty much what you get when you just stick an SM57 on the grille or close to it.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

a sample would help...


----------



## Trelwheen

Seventh Son said:


> Everyone is saying is that the key to good guitar recordings is to get it right at the source. When I do that, where the amp sounds good in the room from about six feet and raised above the floor to, roughly, ear level, and then stick an SM57 about one inch off the grille, roughly in the middle of the cone (not dust cap) on my DSL15C, I get a lot of proximity effect and a recorded tone that is woofy and flat sounding. How did so many bands record such great, high-energy guitar tones by (supposedly) doing the same thing, but every time I try it, I get mediocre results? I am really curious how they were able to deal with all that bass build-up, because that's pretty much what you get when you just stick an SM57 on the grille or close to it.



Try moving the mic around with closed headphones on and turned up pretty loud. Back off the grill a little bit if you're getting too much boom. I record very loud and I always dial in the amp's gain until it sounds good in the room, and then back off the gain a bit. When you replay recorded tracks they always sound like you've got the amp set to a higher gain than it really is.

If I'm playing clean I still run the amp loud. I also get better results when I use an sm57 accompanied by a Sennheiser MD421.

Don't stop experimenting and you will find the sound you're looking for


----------



## Seventh Son

Trelwheen said:


> Try moving the mic around with closed headphones on and turned up pretty loud. Back off the grill a little bit if you're getting too much boom. I record very loud and I always dial in the amp's gain until it sounds good in the room, and then back off the gain a bit. When you replay recorded tracks they always sound like you've got the amp set to a higher gain than it really is.
> 
> If I'm playing clean I still run the amp loud. I also get better results when I use an sm57 accompanied by a Sennheiser MD421.
> 
> Don't stop experimenting and you will find the sound you're looking for


Thank you. I think I've figured it out. Had to turn Bass way down to 1 to get more tightness, raise Presence some, and move the mic closer to the cap, almost where the cap meets the cone. In theory, that should be a very fizzy spot—and it is, relatively speaking—but it is also the only place where that classic Marshall bite can be achieved, and the best spot to get less bass and more mids and highs, so as to achieve a better balance. By placing the mic closer to the center of the speaker, I was also able to place it right on the grille for a fuller, more articulate tone. However, the key to getting a professional, fizz-free tone, was using a second mic in the back of my DSL15C (while making sure the phase is flipped on the rear mike). That finally gave me the mids that I was missing from using a single mic and the result sounds stunning.


----------



## Trelwheen

Seventh Son said:


> Thank you. I think I've figured it out. Had to turn Bass way down to 1 to get more tightness, raise Presence some, and move the mic closer to the cap, almost where the cap meets the cone. In theory, that should be a very fizzy spot—and it is, relatively speaking—but it is also the only place where that classic Marshall bite can be achieved, and the best spot to get less bass and more mids and highs, so as to achieve a better balance. By placing the mic closer to the center of the speaker, I was also able to place it right on the grille for a fuller, more articulate tone. However, the key to getting a professional, fizz-free tone, was using a second mic in the back of my DSL15C (while making sure the phase is flipped on the rear mike). That finally gave me the mids that I was missing from using a single mic and the result sounds stunning.




Excellent news!!


----------



## Seventh Son

Trelwheen said:


> Excellent news!!


I am amazed by how little information there is on doing proper recordings with open-back combos. When I put up a second mic today and set the gain on the interface the same for both mics, I noticed that the sound coming out of the back is way louder than what is coming out the front. In the room, the waves from the front and the back mix to create a pleasing sound with plenty of mids, but if you want to record the tone by putting just one mic in front of the speaker, all you're going to get is thin, high-frequency fizz. I think I'm going to try the MX112R closed-back extension cab at the local store. If my hypothesis is right, that should be the solution to my recording woes. A closed-back 1x12" would be nice, as I'd be able to record with one microphone and not have to worry about placing two microphones correctly while also making sure they're in phase.


----------



## Trelwheen

Seventh Son said:


> I am amazed by how little information there is on doing proper recordings with open-back combos. When I put up a second mic today and set the gain on the interface the same for both mics, I noticed that the sound coming out of the back is way louder than what is coming out the front. In the room, the waves from the front and the back mix to create a pleasing sound with plenty of mids, but if you want to record the tone by putting just one mic in front of the speaker, all you're going to get is thin, high-frequency fizz. I think I'm going to try the MX112R closed-back extension cab at the local store. If my hypothesis is right, that should be the solution to my recording woes. A closed-back 1x12" would be nice, as I'd be able to record with one microphone and not have to worry about placing two microphones correctly while also making sure they're in phase.



Good thinking on the open back concepts...I haven't recorded an open back cab in a long time and wasn't taking those factors into consideration


----------



## Seventh Son

Trelwheen said:


> Good thinking on the open back concepts...I haven't recorded an open back cab in a long time and wasn't taking those factors into consideration


My DSL15C and DSL20CR sound really muscular in the room. That's mostly due to all those mids coming out of the back of the amp. The stuff coming out of the rear of the speaker is much louder than the front and far, far more influential in determining the amp's tone as we perceive it. Capturing the rear of the speaker, though a whole another challenge in and of itself, is, therefore, key to capturing the true sound of the amp as it is heard in the room. I can't believe how many people, including my old self, just stick a mic in the front and then wonder why it always sounds woofy, thin, and fizzy. I would argue that when it comes to recording open-back cabs, two mics—one in the front, and one in the back—is pretty much a requirement.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

the idea behind an open back cab is that you can tune the cabinet to the room by it's proximity to the wall behind it. There's a certain distance between the cab/wall, where the sound blooms at a specific volume. Find the sweet spot. Then, find the sweet listening (mic'ing) spot to capture it from.

When you find the ideal spot for the cab to sound great in the room, there's a few variables. One important variable is where the cab is & where you are when it sounds good to you. 

Now, if you spend a lot of time tuning the cab to the room, then stick an SM57 1" away from the speaker's voice coil, you have essentially eliminated the room tuning.

Think about it. If you are 6 ft tall, & it takes a cab being 36" off the ground to sound good (to you), that means that you are supposing the mic will be at 5'9" off the ground & wherever you are standing, when it sounds good. Usually, when you make that decision, your ear is not 1" away from the voice coil. Find the spot in the room where you settle & feel inspired & place the mic there.


----------



## stringtree

Seventh Son said:


> Everyone is saying is that the key to good guitar recordings is to get it right at the source. *When I do that, where the amp sounds good in the room from about six feet and raised above the floor to, roughly, ear level, and then stick an SM57 about one inch off the grille, roughly in the middle of the cone (not dust cap) *



I never mic'd the room. I have always got great results by using a SM57 kissing the grille on a 45 degree angle.

The pic below, to me, is the right spot on the speaker to mic. I would just change the mic to a 45 degree angle, not dead on and not that close either.






Like this mic position angle and distance.













Aiming the mic at the center of the speaker (see #1 above) will result in a brighter sound. Moving the mic toward the outer edge of the speaker (see #2 above) will reduce the brightness and give you more low end. This may account for your woofy tone.

Angling the microphone at a 45-degree angle can sometimes tame harsh high frequencies, but its effectiveness is determined by which specific mic you’re using. SM57 is just fine.

The above is from: https://www.sweetwater.com/insync/how-to-mic-a-guitar-amplifier/

Its in line with what I have experienced with great results.


----------



## Seventh Son

stringtree said:


> I never mic'd the room. I have always got great results by using a SM57 kissing the grille on a 45 degree angle.
> 
> The pic below, to me, is the right spot on the speaker to mic. I would just change the mic to a 45 degree angle, not dead on and not that close either.
> 
> 
> View attachment 54628
> 
> 
> 
> Like this mic position angle and distance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aiming the mic at the center of the speaker (see #1 above) will result in a brighter sound. Moving the mic toward the outer edge of the speaker (see #2 above) will reduce the brightness and give you more low end. This may account for your woofy tone.
> 
> Angling the microphone at a 45-degree angle can sometimes tame harsh high frequencies, but its effectiveness is determined by which specific mic you’re using. SM57 is just fine.
> 
> The above is from: https://www.sweetwater.com/insync/how-to-mic-a-guitar-amplifier/
> 
> Its in line with what I have experienced with great results.


Having researched this topic extensively, I am familiar with almost every article and video on recording guitar amps that is out there, but thanks for taking the time to put the info together, as well as for your practical advice.

The issue is not so much as where to put the mic; I deem that to be up to personal preference, _to a degree_. With that said, the spot labeled "1" in one of your pictures above is pretty foolproof and should yield very usable tones, as is your suggestion of angling the mic, which reduces the proximity affect and smooths out the highs). The problem is that, with open-back combos, it is impossible to capture the tone of the amp with just one mic up front, since most of what you hear (the body of the tone, with all the mids) leaks out the back and then mixes with the sound emanating from the front, creating slight phase cancellation in the room. I agree with you that room miking is not necessary, but I think that two mics are pretty much mandatory when dealing with open-back cabs. If you just stick a microphone in the front of an open-back amp, you'll pick up only the thin frequencies that vary in brightness.


----------



## Seventh Son

Dogs of Doom said:


> the idea behind an open back cab is that you can tune the cabinet to the room by it's proximity to the wall behind it. There's a certain distance between the cab/wall, where the sound blooms at a specific volume. Find the sweet spot. Then, find the sweet listening (mic'ing) spot to capture it from.
> 
> When you find the ideal spot for the cab to sound great in the room, there's a few variables. One important variable is where the cab is & where you are when it sounds good to you.
> 
> Now, if you spend a lot of time tuning the cab to the room, then stick an SM57 1" away from the speaker's voice coil, you have essentially eliminated the room tuning.
> 
> Think about it. If you are 6 ft tall, & it takes a cab being 36" off the ground to sound good (to you), that means that you are supposing the mic will be at 5'9" off the ground & wherever you are standing, when it sounds good. Usually, when you make that decision, your ear is not 1" away from the voice coil. Find the spot in the room where you settle & feel inspired & place the mic there.


I absolutely get what you're saying, but why then does everyone always point out how some of the most iconic recordings were done with a simple SM57 right on the grille, about an inch away (usually somewhere around where the dust cap meets the cone, or in the middle of the cone)? At least in metal, ambient miking is not very prevalent.


----------



## stringtree

Seventh Son said:


> Having researched this topic extensively, I am familiar with almost every article and video on recording guitar amps that is out there, but thanks for taking the time to put the info together, as well as for your practical advice.
> 
> The issue is not so much as where to put the mic. The stop labeled "1" in one of your pictures above is pretty foolproof, as is your suggestion of angling the mic, which reduces the proximity affect and smooths out the highs). The problem is that, with open-back combos, it is impossible to capture the tone of the amp with just one mic up front, since most of what you hear (*the body of the tone, with all the mids) leaks out the back and then mixes with the sound emanating from the front*, creating slight phase cancellation in the room. I agree with you that room miking is not necessary, but I think that two mics are pretty much mandatory when dealing with open-back cabs. If you just stick a microphone in the front of an open-back amp, you'll pick up only the thin frequencies that very in brightness emanating from the front of the speaker.



I was in no way means trying to offend you. I somehow missed the open back, and focused on what you were more less addressing in that post.

If I may, why not mic the back of the cab before it gets a chance to mix with the front....

Could you just block off the back temporary, and close mic and use a mic for distance... 

Here is this. Its not an open back combo, but they mic'd it in a unique way. One mic on the floor and one above to show off how it fills the room.


----------



## Seventh Son

stringtree said:


> I was in no way means trying to offend you. I somehow missed the open back, and focused on what you were more less addressing in that post.
> 
> If I may, why not mic the back of the cab before it gets a chance to mix with the front....
> 
> Could you just block off the back temporary, and close mic and use a mic for distance...
> 
> Here is this. Its not an open back combo, but they mic'd it in a unique way. One mic on the floor and one above to show off how it fills the room.



You did not offend me at all. I was just trying to let you know that I am already up to speed on the basics of guitar amp recording. I've been experimenting with recording techniques for over three years now, almost on a daily basis, trying every conceivable SM57 mic position (front of speaker and close-miked only). It wasn't until very recently that I became aware of the flaws in the standard wisdom on guitar amp miking, specifically as it relates to my open-back DSL15C combo, which is what I've been trying to record for the longest time. My observations and trial and error with a single SM57 in the front have lead me to believe that trying to capture a good rock sound from an open-back combo (such as my DSL15C) with a single SM57 is impossible, simply because the speaker produces nothing but high frequencies in the front. In the back, the speaker sounds a whole lot more muscular and tighter, like a closed back 4x12". So, based on these observations, I started hypothesizing that the only way to capture the true sound of the combo that I am hearing in the room (which is the mix of everything coming out of the speaker, front and back), is to close-mike both the front and the back of the speaker. My first experiments in the endeavor this weekend were very promising.

I wanted to engage the peeps here in the thread and to see what they think, since I thought it pretty strange that no one in all those online articles and Youtube videos every explicitly mentioned that recording open-back combos with a single SM57 in the front will not work. You'd think that all the pros would know that.


----------



## SmokeyDopey

Seventh Son said:


> recording open-back combos with a single SM57 in the front will not work.



Depends what sound you're going for. Sometimes that's the sound you need.


----------



## stringtree

Seventh Son said:


> You did not offend me at all. I was just trying to let you know that I am already up to speed on the basics of guitar amp recording. I've been experimenting with recording techniques for over three years now, almost on a daily basis, trying every conceivable SM57 mic position (front of speaker and close-miked only). It wasn't until very recently that I became aware of the flaws in the standard wisdom on guitar amp miking, specifically as it relates to my open-back DSL15C combo, which is what I've been trying to record for the longest time. My observations and trial and error with a single SM57 in the front have lead me to believe that trying to capture a good rock sound from an open-back combo (such as my DSL15C) with a single SM57 is impossible, simply because the speaker produces nothing but high frequencies in the front. In the back, the speaker sounds a whole lot more muscular and tighter, like a closed back 4x12". So, based on these observations, I started hypothesizing that the only way to capture the true sound of the combo that I am hearing in the room (which is the mix of everything coming out of the speaker, front and back), is to close-mike both the front and the back of the speaker. My first experiments in the endeavor this weekend were very promising.
> 
> I wanted to engage the peeps here in the thread and to see what they think, since I thought it pretty strange that no one in all those online articles and Youtube videos every explicitly mentioned that recording open-back combos with a single SM57 in the front will not work. You'd think that all the pros would know that.



I appreciate all the hard work you have put into this.

Do you have any sound clips that us peeps could hear....? LOL
I would enjoy listening to what you have labored so hard for. 

I admire you for sticking with it! You'll get that break through yet!!


----------



## Seventh Son

stringtree said:


> I appreciate all the hard work you have put into this.
> 
> Do you have any sound clips that us peeps could hear....? LOL
> I would enjoy listening to what you have labored so hard for.
> 
> I admire you for sticking with it! You'll get that break through yet!!


I will definitely record and post something next weekend. I think you will find the clips very illuminating.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Seventh Son said:


> I absolutely get what you're saying, but why then does everyone always point out how some of the most iconic recordings were done with a simple SM57 right on the grille, about an inch away (usually somewhere around where the dust cap meets the cone, or in the middle of the cone)? At least in metal, ambient miking is not very prevalent.


because it's the lazy way...

It works well for live, where you have to compromise sound for controlling signals & ambient feedbacks.

I see a lot of youtube heroes push putting a mic straight into the voice coil, but, not too many (real) studio engineers...


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Seventh Son said:


> You did not offend me at all. I was just trying to let you know that I am already up to speed on the basics of guitar amp recording. I've been experimenting with recording techniques for over three years now, almost on a daily basis, trying every conceivable SM57 mic position (front of speaker and close-miked only). It wasn't until very recently that I became aware of the flaws in the standard wisdom on guitar amp miking, specifically as it relates to my open-back DSL15C combo, which is what I've been trying to record for the longest time. My observations and trial and error with a single SM57 in the front have lead me to believe that trying to capture a good rock sound from an open-back combo (such as my DSL15C) with a single SM57 is impossible, simply because the speaker produces nothing but high frequencies in the front. In the back, the speaker sounds a whole lot more muscular and tighter, like a closed back 4x12". So, based on these observations, I started hypothesizing that the only way to capture the true sound of the combo that I am hearing in the room (which is the mix of everything coming out of the speaker, front and back), is to close-mike both the front and the back of the speaker. My first experiments in the endeavor this weekend were very promising.
> 
> I wanted to engage the peeps here in the thread and to see what they think, since I thought it pretty strange that no one in all those online articles and Youtube videos every explicitly mentioned that recording open-back combos with a single SM57 in the front will not work. You'd think that all the pros would know that.


it seems your central point of this post is that a single mic won't work. You are wrong. It can & will work, if you learn how to do it...


----------



## Seventh Son

Dogs of Doom said:


> it seems your central point of this post is that a single mic won't work. You are wrong. It can & will work, if you learn how to do it...


So, then, I take it you advocate a room mic/ambient miking approach with a single mic? If yes, do you think an SM57 would be an adequate tool for basic home recording? Do you believe ambient miking is the best way to record open-back cabs?


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Seventh Son said:


> So, then, I take it you advocate a room mic/ambient miking approach with a single mic? If yes, do you think an SM57 would be an adequate tool for basic home recording? Do you believe ambient miking is the best way to record open-back cabs?


well, you started off a few posts above w/ the idea (which is correct), that to get a good guitar sound on record, you need a good source & capture.

If not, after that, all you're doing is polishing a turd, if that's what you've captured.

I'm a firm believer in using your ears. Use a mic as you would your ears. Start there, then, you can adjust. You can record a whole drumset w/ a single mic. It doesn't mean you have to & can't get better sounds using multiple mic's, but, I believe that, if you can't do it well w/ a single mic, you have a lot to learn & adding a 2nd mic won't necessarily fix it.

I remember way back, being in a studio, & recording acoustic guitar. We put the guitar on a stand, to hold it steady, put a pencil condensor aimed straight at the 12th fret (harmonic point) & a large diaphragm mic over the guitarist' shoulder. This mic was to capture the guitarist' perspective of sound, rather than a room sound. Guitarists play to accommodate the best tone as heard by their ear. They have no clue as to what the guitar sounds like out front, or anywhere else in the room.

I preach this all the time, but, the best thing you can do, is learn your boundaries & phase. A good way to look at it is boundary mic's & see how they work, how to use them. There's a science there, that will help you immensely.

Look at mid-side (M/S) recording. If you understand that, you can also use it to blend mic's recorded out of phase.

If you don't understand phase, I recommend, that, when you use multiple mic's, you have them on the same axial plane.

There's lots of resources on those subjects. Once you get the gist, it's all about listening & experimenting & listening/experimenting some more.

To think that you simply get a generic mic (SM57) & point it right in front of something & get anything special is just fooling yourself. Sure you can get a useable sound, but, that depends a lot on your ear. Some people do not have the ear to know the difference. It seems you do, otherwise you wouldn't be baffled at why the internet lore of SM57 straight in front of the coil 1" doesn't seem to work.

Try pulling the mic back 12-16" Move it a foot over (to the side) & aim it towards the voice coil. Do some recording. Pull it back farther another 6" (outward 45º angle) aiming it towards the coil still. You'll notice the room starting to capture. Try having the cabinet about 4" away from a bare wall when doing this. Try moving the cab to a corner & place it 45º between the walls. Try a couple inch between the corners of the cab & the wall. Have the mic, down the wall about 20", aimed towards the voice coils again.

Have fun, try stuff & get some good sounds. You can have the cab on the ground, & just have the mic, about a foot off the ground. You can try, having the mic 3' off the ground, over the cab & aiming down toward the coil again.

Being that the mic is off axis, you should not get the raspy fizz of the straight on beam of the coil. Some people like to use those better beamer things, or make their own device similar, just to avoid the voice coil harshness...

Hopefully that gives you some info to start on... ...


----------



## Dogs of Doom

read this:

Boundary:
http://www.coutant.org/pcc160/127089.pdf

https://www.technicalaudio.com/pdf/Crown_International/Crown_Mic_Memo_issues_over_22_years.pdf

this pretty much mirrors the 1st link:
https://www.prosoundweb.com/channels/live-sound/putting-them-microphones-that-is-on-the-floor/

&, I'm not trying to sell you a bouncary mic, but, it's just that the theory of boundaries is an important one to know, when recording/mic'ing...



https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/q-pzm-and-boundary-mics-whats-difference


----------



## Dogs of Doom

this one shows examples of various mic's:



misc:




natural ambiance - probably only one or 2 mic's used on all drums:



Anyway, hopefully you can see where I'm going w/ this. Learning the boundary, gives you control over the room. You can deviate from that which gives you control, because you now understand certain things. It is better to record cleanly, the room, w/ boundary methods, than to stick a mic in the face of the speaker & be limited by the unnatural sound of the speaker.

Put your combo on a wood floor, 4" away from the wall, & place the SM57 on the floor 16" in front of the cabinet, aimed down into the wood. If it sounds flat, try leaning the tail away from the speaker, so that the mic is 45º aimed at the ground capturing the cabinet bounce off the floor. If you have a good condensor mic, you'll get a much better guitar sound, IMO...


----------



## Dogs of Doom

the thing I love about this video:



is that there are no effects added. All the reverb is natural ambience of the environment. All mic's the same, just placing the drums in a different place made for all of the different sounds.

Same drums
Same mic's

different locations...

This is true w/ your amplifier. It will give you just as many different sounds, if you place it in as many different places. Having an open back, I'd recommend always having a stand up panel (wall) to place behind it, if playing a venue, where there is no wall within a few inches. Also, it's better to have a hard surface, than curtains, as many clubs will have curtains, or other amp's behind yours, if you're not a headliner...


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Here's some stuff on mid/side & phase:

https://www.uaudio.com/blog/mid-side-mic-recording/

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explor...s/recording-mid-side-microphone-configuration

https://www.dpamicrophones.com/mic-university/principles-of-the-ms-stereo-technique

https://www.sweetwater.com/insync/mid-side-miking-2/

https://www.protoolsproduction.com/decodingmidside/





Now, here's a concept, based on M/S mic technique, but he created a speaker to use it in reverse. So, he uses a mono speaker & 2 side speakers out of phase to create a single source speaker, that gives a stereo image, no matter where you listen to it from. Ironically, he uses M/S mic to record it, to hear the effect...


----------



## Dogs of Doom

speaking of M/S technique. That's what I used on these:





I placed the mic on the stage, about 12 ft away. He had the amp's dimed. The recorder was off to the side by about a 35º to stage left (right of the mic stand), aimed right at the front of the cab's...


----------



## Dogs of Doom

like people mod their Marshall amp's. This guy is famous for mod'ing digital field recording devices to improve their recording quality. He's a good taper as well, so he has some good advice here...

https://www.oade.com/Tapers_Section/index.html


----------



## _ripper_

Dogs of Doom said:


> because it's the lazy way...
> 
> It works well for live, where you have to compromise sound for controlling signals & ambient feedbacks.
> 
> I see a lot of youtube heroes push putting a mic straight into the voice coil, but, not too many (real) studio engineers...



I'm not discounting what you're saying, but I'd like to add that many interviews I've read from real studio engineers, when discussing albums they have worked on, have stated they the close miked the cab with one or two mics. Andy Sneap, for example, has said he uses a single SM57. And many others. Could it be that they are being coy and secretive? Maybe.

That being said my personal (amateur) experience is that a good guitar, amp, and cab, plus an SM57 are plenty for a great heavy guitar sound.


----------



## Seventh Son

_ripper_ said:


> I'm not discounting what you're saying, but I'd like to add that many interviews I've read from real studio engineers, when discussing albums they have worked on, have stated they the close miked the cab with one or two mics. Andy Sneap, for example, has said he uses a single SM57. And many others. Could it be that they are being coy and secretive? Maybe.
> 
> That being said my personal (amateur) experience is that a good guitar, amp, and cab, plus an SM57 are plenty for a great heavy guitar sound.


I think that you are probably right, but only when applied to closed-back cabs, where all the sound is pushed forward, where the microphone is. It will still not sound as natural as room miking, but the directness of it will be worth it, and will probably sit well in the mix.

My point is, again, that with open-back cabs, the front of the speaker is pushing mostly high, fizzy frequencies and some woofy bass, while the back of the speaker sounds more metal, with meaty, aggressive mids and treble and tight lows (but it is a somewhat strange sound, hard to describe). If you're using a single SM57 on the grille, all you're going to get is fizz, regardless of where you place the mic. The fizz will only vary in brightness. Moving the mic to the edge of the speaker will add some midrange, but will also result in a very papery, dull tone. Hence, my hypothesis: It is not enough to close-mike an open-back cab with just a single dynamic mic on the grille cloth. The answer is likely either front and back together, or room miking, or a combination of both.


----------



## Derek S

I use a 57 (actually a couple of them) but never get fizz (never tried it on an open back cab however), although I admit I much prefer pairing it up with another mic and always have it off axis. I've also always been a grill/close mic fan as well and just add ambience in post. Gazillions of pro recordings have used this approach, both live and in the studio - it just works! If you can post a pic of your current setup with a sample it would go a long way towards helping out (sorry if I missed it).

Edit: I see that you're working on getting a sample up.

Here's my humble guitar mic setup...


----------



## stringtree

_ripper_ said:


> I'm not discounting what you're saying, but I'd like to add that many interviews I've read from real studio engineers, when discussing albums they have worked on, have stated they the close miked the cab with one or two mics. Andy Sneap, for example, has said he uses a single SM57. And many others. Could it be that they are being coy and secretive? Maybe.
> 
> That being said my personal (amateur) experience is that a good guitar, amp, and cab, plus an SM57 are plenty for a great heavy guitar sound.



I think you might be missing the point of the discussion. I made this mistake too. Its about recording the ambiance of an open back combo amp. The OP is having trouble doing it with just an SM57, don't recall the other mic he is using.
____________________________________________________________________________________________

Dogs of Doom, I can't thank you enough for all your time and effort you have put into your posts on this subject!!
I feel like a student in your class. The details and clips are top notch and easy to understand.

Maybe it might be time for the Marshall Forum to take the recording thread and make it just a category. Then have sub-category's such as Mics and Mic Placement 101. This info you just shared above is too good to be buried in a 45 page thread. Or at least make it a sticky, just what you shared.

So many members recordings they share here would improve, mine included, with the info just shared. 

____________________________________________________________________________________________


Derek S, your missing the bigger picture of what Dogs of Doom is sharing. What you do, and I have done too, is just one way of skinning the cat. There is a whole world of ways to capture a great recording! Dogs of Doom is giving us the tools and knowledge, that no matter what circumstance you may be in, one can find the best sound for that recording, and or playing live with whatever tools at hand.

Something being missed too is, this info is just not for recording. It applys to playing live! Why spend all that time learning to play guitar, honing ones skills, go play out and sound like a turd because of a poor understanding of mics, and mic placement..?

People sharing this type of knowledge, do not come along everyday. Just my


----------



## SmokeyDopey

An engineer saying that a certain sound is "just an SM57" may be a little simplified.
Besides engineers not giving away all their little tricks, sometimes they leave aside other details for the sake of sounding simple and practical. 

That "single SM57" is capturing the close sound, but a lot of bands record live, and there can be bleed from other instruments and also room mics. So the drum's room mics are also picking up some guitar, making it sound more like as if a listener were in the same room with the instruments.

So sure, the amp is being picked up only by a 57, but there are other factors that make up the whole sound.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Seventh Son said:


> I think that you are probably right, but only when applied to closed-back cabs, where all the sound is pushed forward, where the microphone is. It will still not sound as natural as room miking, but the directness of it will be worth it, and will probably sit well in the mix.
> 
> My point is, again, that with open-back cabs, the front of the speaker is pushing mostly high, fizzy frequencies and some woofy bass, while the back of the speaker sounds more metal, with meaty, aggressive mids and treble and tight lows (but it is a somewhat strange sound, hard to describe). If you're using a single SM57 on the grille, all you're going to get is fizz, regardless of where you place the mic. The fizz will only vary in brightness. Moving the mic to the edge of the speaker will add some midrange, but will also result in a very papery, dull tone. Hence, my hypothesis: It is not enough to close-mike an open-back cab with just a single dynamic mic on the grille cloth. The answer is likely either front and back together, or room miking, or a combination of both.


while this won't solve the loss of bass projection of an open back cab, try aligning the mic, where the dust cap (dome) meets the cone. Keeping the mic head aligned there, aim the head away from the center. Try a 45º angle away. That will help w/ not getting the direct fizz beam...


----------



## Derek S

Ahhh, I guess I didn't read far enough back. I definitely have never tried the "room mic" or ambient mic thing and can see where that is a whole other piece of the puzzle that could take a lot of time to master. I once saw a picture that andy timmons shared of his humble home tracking setup and he DOES use that technique, I recall the sort of ghetto style setup he had with a single mic about 4' or 5' back from the rear of his cab and two large sheets of playwood sort of funneling the sound from the rear towards the mic...it looked interesting but also too much trouble for me to try lol!


----------



## Dogs of Doom

stringtree said:


> I think you might be missing the point of the discussion. I made this mistake too. Its about recording the ambiance of an open back combo amp. The OP is having trouble doing it with just an SM57, don't recall the other mic he is using.
> ____________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> Dogs of Doom, I can't thank you enough for all your time and effort you have put into your posts on this subject!!
> I feel like a student in your class. The details and clips are top notch and easy to understand.
> 
> Maybe it might be time for the Marshall Forum to take the recording thread and make it just a category. Then have sub-category's such as Mics and Mic Placement 101. This info you just shared above is too good to be buried in a 45 page thread. Or at least make it a sticky, just what you shared.
> 
> So many members recordings they share here would improve, mine included, with the info just shared.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> Derek S, your missing the bigger picture of what Dogs of Doom is sharing. What you do, and I have done too, is just one way of skinning the cat. There is a whole world of ways to capture a great recording! Dogs of Doom is giving us the tools and knowledge, that no matter what circumstance you may be in, one can find the best sound for that recording, and or playing live with whatever tools at hand.
> 
> Something being missed too is, this info is just not for recording. It applys to playing live! Why spend all that time learning to play guitar, honing ones skills, go play out and sound like a turd because of a poor understanding of mics, and mic placement..?
> 
> People sharing this type of knowledge, do not come along everyday. Just my


yep, just tools, take 'em or leave them. If you have something that works for you, that's fine. I've probably forgotten more about all this stuff than I can remember... ...

A long time back, I used to do a lot of live/studio engineering. I also used to do soundproofing & acoustic design. I studied a lot on these things & they've helped me plenty over the years. 

Usually, I've had to help people try & achieve results on the cheap, doing diy stuff, which takes ingenuity, but also a lot of trial & error. I'm just trying to steer people in the right direction. Many x's people will see what's presented & find something else, along the same lines, but it works for them & that's what matters...


----------



## _ripper_

Guilty as charged, I missed the part about micing an open back cab, which I have zero experience with.

I will reiterate that for heavy distorted guitar sounds, you can get a really good result with one or two relatively inexpensive dynamic mics. What you have to spend time on is positioning. I made countless recordings for a specific project, shooting out different mics, experimenting with various levels of amp volume while recording and finally nailing down mic placement. What I did end up doing was to put the cab in a different room than the head, turned up to wall shaking volume and miced with an SM7b (as opposed to the 57). Sounded great to my ears! But, I've got result I'm happy with with just an SM57, playing at low volume with an attenuator.

Again, this is for my style of music, where guitar sounds are focused and tight. Obviously, other styles of music will have other sonic requirements.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

_ripper_ said:


> I'm not discounting what you're saying, but I'd like to add that many interviews I've read from real studio engineers, when discussing albums they have worked on, have stated they the close miked the cab with one or two mics. Andy Sneap, for example, has said he uses a single SM57. And many others. Could it be that they are being coy and secretive? Maybe.
> 
> That being said my personal (amateur) experience is that a good guitar, amp, and cab, plus an SM57 are plenty for a great heavy guitar sound.


one thing to keep in mind. In certain mixes/productions, guitar tone comes low on the list of overall production. Just making it cut through the mix is good enough.



_ripper_ said:


> Guilty as charged, I missed the part about micing an open back cab, which I have zero experience with.
> 
> I will reiterate that for heavy distorted guitar sounds, you can get a really good result with one or two relatively inexpensive dynamic mics. What you have to spend time on is positioning. I made countless recordings for a specific project, shooting out different mics, experimenting with various levels of amp volume while recording and finally nailing down mic placement. What I did end up doing was to put the cab in a different room than the head, turned up to wall shaking volume and miced with an SM7b (as opposed to the 57). Sounded great to my ears! But, I've got result I'm happy with with just an SM57, playing at low volume with an attenuator.
> 
> Again, this is for my style of music, where guitar sounds are focused and tight. Obviously, other styles of music will have other sonic requirements.


That's where my postings started. I always try & tackle stuff w/ a single mic 1st, before giving up & deciding that adding a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. will just solve everything.

One might ask themself, what will mic #2 solve? How will it solve it? What needs solving in the 1st place.

In reality, adding mic's can create more problems than solve, if you don't understand boundaries & phase. Many people won't know the difference & will be convinced otherwise & I guess that's fine, if you're happy, but, I've always been one to want to know the ins-&-outs of what "improvements" I'm doing & if I'm actually improving or degrading & what makes the difference. If I can figure that out, I can instinctively do hands on problem solving on the fly.


----------



## Seventh Son

Here's a quick demo of the stuff. You'll hear three figures. They are as follows.

SM57 pointed roughly where cap meets cone 12" away from the amp to capture more of the amp's true tone in the room.
SM57 inside the cab in the back of the speaker, fairly close to the speaker.
SM57 about 3 feet away from a 4x12", pointing where cap and cone meet.


Notice how in (1) moving the close mic 12" from the speaker improved the issues I was having with super-fizzy tone from 1" away and captured some of the thick mids leaking from the back as they propagate through the room. However, the captured tone is still a facsimile of the true sound of the amp, since those aggressive mids are not coming through well enough.
In (2) you have just the back, but with a load of proximity effect and a slightly dull tone. Otherwise, this is a pretty sexy metal tone, minus the bass buildup and the lack of presence. These heavy mids are a good representation of how sexy the amp sounds in the room (but darn hard to recapture with a mic)
In (3) you have the ideal tone, captured through a 4x12", closed back. Even when miked about 3 feet away from the speaker, the mids are strong and cutting and everything sounds like it should, mid-heavy but also pretty balanced.
All tone samples were recorded with my DSL15C.

Just to reiterate the obvious, notice how easy it was to record a professional metal tone with an SM57 and a _closed-back_ 4x12". It's so mid-bogglingly easy, it's almost foolproof.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

interestingly, the sound #1, is what most people go after when they record the 57 straight into the speaker. In a mix, that will cut, but... it still may not be pleasing. Some people would be pleased w/ that.

#2 sounds dull & flat.

#3, sounds hollow, typical of an SM57 mic. I call it a nasally tone. 

probably the reason people stick the 57 up into the speaker, is to get that direct sound, rather than the hollow 57 sound. I remember AT was developing a mic line to kill Shure (& most of them did), but, the one that they made to defeat the 57, emphasized that nasal sound extremely & IMO, was a failure. It opened my eyes ears to the nasally sound & I heard it on a whole slew of recordings throughout the '80s. Probably ½ the reason everybody started processing their sounds w/ so much chorus back then. ...

Your room sounds cold...


----------



## Seventh Son

Dogs of Doom said:


> interestingly, the sound #1, is what most people go after when they record the 57 straight into the speaker. In a mix, that will cut, but... it still may not be pleasing. Some people would be pleased w/ that.
> 
> #2 sounds dull & flat.
> 
> #3, sounds hollow, typical of an SM57 mic. I call it a nasally tone.
> 
> probably the reason people stick the 57 up into the speaker, is to get that direct sound, rather than the hollow 57 sound. I remember AT was developing a mic line to kill Shure (& most of them did), but, the one that they made to defeat the 57, emphasized that nasal sound extremely & IMO, was a failure. It opened my eyes ears to the nasally sound & I heard it on a whole slew of recordings throughout the '80s. Probably ½ the reason everybody started processing their sounds w/ so much chorus back then. ...
> 
> Your room sounds cold...


It's my apartment living room.

I don't find the SM57 nasal, but that's purely a matter of taste. The tone I am learning to recreate is something like this. Very present but also mid-heavy. Just a classic tone and a good place to start, I thought.


Here's another demo. This is an SM57 in the front, first about 3–4 feet away, and then about 5–6 inches. I think the more distant mic cuts way more and does a better job at capturing the mids that leak through the back.


----------



## stringtree

Seventh Son said:


> Here's a quick demo of the stuff. You'll hear three figures. They are as follows.
> 
> SM57 pointed roughly where cap meets cone 12" away from the amp to capture more of the amp's true tone in the room.
> SM57 inside the cab in the back of the speaker, fairly close to the speaker.
> SM57 about 3 feet away from a 4x12", pointing where cap and cone meet.
> 
> 
> Notice how in (1) moving the close mic 12" from the speaker improved the issues I was having with super-fizzy tone from 1" away and captured some of the thick mids leaking from the back as they propagate through the room. However, the captured tone is still a facsimile of the true sound of the amp, since those aggressive mids are not coming through well enough.
> In (2) you have just the back, but with a load of proximity effect and a slightly dull tone. Otherwise, this is a pretty sexy metal tone, minus the bass buildup and the lack of presence. These heavy mids are a good representation of how sexy the amp sounds in the room (but darn hard to recapture with a mic)
> In (3) you have the ideal tone, captured through a 4x12", closed back. Even when miked about 3 feet away from the speaker, the mids are strong and cutting and everything sounds like it should, mid-heavy but also pretty balanced.
> All tone samples were recorded with my DSL15C.
> 
> Just to reiterate the obvious, notice how easy it was to record a professional metal tone with an SM57 and a _closed-back_ 4x12". It's so mid-bogglingly easy, it's almost foolproof.






Seventh Son said:


> It's my apartment living room.
> 
> I don't find the SM57 nasal, but that's purely a matter of taste. The tone I am learning to recreate is something like this. Very present but also mid-heavy. Just a classic tone and a good place to start, I thought.
> 
> 
> Here's another demo. This is an SM57 in the front, first about 3–4 feet away, and then about 5–6 inches. I think the more distant mic cuts way more and does a better job at capturing the mids that leak through the back.




To be honest, I thought you were after a clean tone, with talk like room ambiance, open back combo, and such. Really you are after a layered guitar tone using multiple mic positions, and multiply tracks.

I guess its how one hears it. LOL

That is a righteous tone your after. 
To my ears, you have done a good job with the 1,2,3 sound samples tones for mic position.

My guess at it would be, if you take just 1,3 of your mic positions and assign them to 2 separate tracks.

The 1st mic position panned left 10 o'clock

The 3rd mic position panned right 3 o'clock

I would even copy tracks 1,3 mic positions:

The 1st mic position panned left 10 o'clock / keep dry
Copied 1st mic position panned left 10 1/2 o'clock / a tad of chorus / fader volume feathered in to just thicken up a bit not show case it.

The 3rd mic position panned right 3 o'clock / keep dry
Copied 3rd mic position panned right 2 1/2 o'clock / a tad of chorus / fader volume feathered in to just thicken up a bit not show case it.

This is based off just the first 41 seconds of the song, using headphones. I look forward to what you come up with.


----------



## stringtree

Dogs of Doom said:


> interestingly, the sound #1, is what most people go after when they record the 57 straight into the speaker. In a mix, that will cut, but... it still may not be pleasing. Some people would be pleased w/ that.
> 
> #2 sounds dull & flat.
> 
> #3, sounds hollow, typical of an SM57 mic. I call it a nasally tone.
> 
> probably the reason people stick the 57 up into the speaker, is to get that direct sound, rather than the hollow 57 sound. I remember AT was developing a mic line to kill Shure (& most of them did), but, the one that they made to defeat the 57, emphasized that nasal sound extremely & IMO, was a failure. It opened my eyes ears to the nasally sound & I heard it on a whole slew of recordings throughout the '80s. Probably ½ the reason everybody started processing their sounds w/ so much chorus back then. ...
> 
> Your room sounds cold...



Your spot on with the assessment of the tone Seventh Son was after... Iron Maidans Trooper off "Piece of Mind" 1983.
You described it, before he revealed what tone he was after!

#3, sounds hollow, typical of an SM57 mic. I call it a nasally tone.
To my ears, I hear this in the Trooper, the guitar tone on the right side.

His #1 sound could be the left guitar tone.

You know your stuff!! 

What hears you....


----------



## Seventh Son

stringtree said:


> Your spot on with the assessment of the tone Seventh Son was after... Iron Maidans Trooper off "Piece of Mind" 1983.
> You described it, before he revealed what tone he was after!
> 
> #3, sounds hollow, typical of an SM57 mic. I call it a nasally tone.
> To my ears, I hear this in the Trooper, the guitar tone on the right side.
> 
> His #1 sound could be the left guitar tone.
> 
> You know your stuff!!
> 
> What hears you....


True. It's a very '80s, classic metal tone. Of the whole family of such tones, I think Maiden's _Piece of Mind_ guitar tone is the most refined representation of that kind of tone.

Now, as you can see, it's pretty easy to capture that kind of tone with a closed-back 4x12", and I would go out on a limb here and say that the same is probably also true of most closed-back cabs, even the smaller 1x12" varieties.

My motivation for bringing this topic up was to make people aware of a very common misconception about recording amps, which says that all you need to do is take a single SM57 and point it at the "right" spot on the grille cloth. This will never work. It can. It is impossible, due to two reasons: (1) excessive bass build up from the proximity effect and (2) a skew of the captured tone toward very high frequencies, resulting in a thin, fizzy tone on a recording that will never resemble what's heard in the room.

Based on my experiments, it became clear that much better results could be obtained by pointing an SM57 at the front of the speaker from about 3–4 feet away, where the only drawback was that the result was a bit thin and captured the "air" in the room, which we don't necessarily want. I have also tried two SM57s, one placed 3–4 feet in front of the amp, and the other 3–4 feet in the back of the amp. The rear mic captured a lot of really boomy bass from that distance (worse than placing the mic very _near_ the back of the speaker) and was not usable, even after blending it with the front mic.

So, for getting better recorded tones from open-back cabs, the bottom line so far is:
(1) Use 1 mic.
(2) Place it a few feet away from the amp.

I did all my testing with the amp volume on 2. It is _possible_ that with the amp set even louder, more of the leaking mids from the back would make it forward to the mic, which would be a further improvement, and the sheer increase in volume might also result in a slightly thicker tone overall. But that is something that I have not tested and would need to be verified empirically.


----------



## StratoMarshall

I have successfully recorded 4x12 cabs with one SM57 close mic'd and got a very satisfying, thick tone. BUT, this was with a JMP 2204 CRANKED. Awesome sound in a lively room.
Mic placed almost on the grill cloth at a 45 deg angle (basically on axis with the cone itself and about halfway between the dust cap and edge of the speaker). When I record Marshalls, they gotta be operating in their sweet spot volume wise. Also get the same results out of a TSL100. This is not always possible for everyone though.
When I get back in town, I'll record some demo clips (unprocessed and honest) and put 'em up here.


----------



## Seventh Son

StratoMarshall said:


> I have successfully recorded 4x12 cabs with one SM57 close mic'd and got a very satisfying, thick tone. BUT, this was with a JMP 2204 CRANKED. Awesome sound in a lively room.
> Mic placed almost on the grill cloth at a 45 deg angle (basically on axis with the cone itself and about halfway between the dust cap and edge of the speaker). When I record Marshalls, they gotta be operating in their sweet spot volume wise. Also get the same results out of a TSL100. This is not always possible for everyone though.
> When I get back in town, I'll record some demo clips (unprocessed and honest) and put 'em up here.


Recording closed-back cabs (4x12" or otherwise) is relatively easy, as my previous posts prove. The real challenge is getting similar _recorded_ tones out of open-back combos, such as the DSL15C, DSL5C5, or the DSL20CR, for all the reasons mentioned and demonstrated in my few previous posts.


----------



## StratoMarshall

Seventh Son said:


> Recording closed-back cabs (4x12" or otherwise) is relatively easy, as my previous posts prove. The real challenge is getting similar _recorded_ tones out of open-back combos, such as the DSL15C, DSL5C5, or the DSL20CR, for all the reasons mentioned and demonstrated in my few previous posts.


Hmmmmm, I do have an old open back Ibanez solid state combo amp. I'll have to experiment with that using your suggestions!


----------



## Seventh Son

StratoMarshall said:


> Hmmmmm, I do have an old open back Ibanez solid state combo amp. I'll have to experiment with that using your suggestions!


As you'll find out, it is real hard. And just to make sure everyone gets me right, I am not knocking the way the amps sound in the room. Both my DSL15C and my DSL20CR sound amazing _in the room_. It's the _recording_ part that's a real bitch, due to the open-back construction and leakage of the meaty mids that give the tone bark and body in the room, but don't come across well in a recording.


----------



## StratoMarshall

Seventh Son said:


> As you'll find out, it is real hard. And just to make sure everyone gets me right, I am not knocking the way the amps sound in the room. Both my DSL15C and my DSL20CR sound amazing _in the room_. It's the _recording_ part that's a real bitch, due to the open-back construction and leakage of the meaty mids that give the tone bark and body in the room, but don't come across well in a recording.


I agree with you. I have worked as a tracking engineer and post engineer in studios and amazingly have never had the opportunity to capture an open back cab! Your description of the acoustical properties and behavior make absolute sense. Seems like the principle may be analogous to miking a grand piano due the different sources of various sound coming from the same instrument.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

I meant to post this vid last night. This guy makes his own boundary mic's. You can do similar, getting a similar mic & aiming it at the wall, within about 1/16" distance between the capsule head & the wall. That small 1/16" gap, creates a pressure zone, which captures the room sound w/o any reverb effect from phasing. His use of lexan is standard.


----------



## stringtree

Dogs of Doom said:


> I meant to post this vid last night. This guy makes his own boundary mic's. You can do similar, getting a similar mic & aiming it at the wall, within about 1/16" distance between the capsule head & the wall. That small 1/16" gap, creates a pressure zone, which captures the room sound w/o any reverb effect from phasing. His use of lexan is standard.




Great video!

That Behringer ECM8000 is only 59.99 at Sweetwater.


----------



## stringtree

Dogs of Doom said:


> the thing I love about this video:
> 
> 
> 
> is that there are no effects added. All the reverb is natural ambience of the environment. All mic's the same, just placing the drums in a different place made for all of the different sounds.
> 
> Same drums
> Same mic's
> 
> different locations...
> 
> This is true w/ your amplifier. It will give you just as many different sounds, if you place it in as many different places. Having an open back, I'd recommend always having a stand up panel (wall) to place behind it, if playing a venue, where there is no wall within a few inches. Also, it's better to have a hard surface, than curtains, as many clubs will have curtains, or other amp's behind yours, if you're not a headliner...





I dig it too! 

The first place he starts off is just insane. I did not expect that kind of interaction from just that simple kit and the places it was set up in! Under that concrete overpass with the pillars was just too much for it, and this is outside..

The auto garage I'm guessing with all the steel really aggravated that snare. 

Very creative!


----------



## Dogs of Doom

stringtree said:


> Great video!
> 
> That Behringer ECM8000 is only 59.99 at Sweetwater.


https://www.parts-express.com/dayton-audio-emm-6-electret-measurement-microphone--390-801

there are many to choose from, even USB versions...



stringtree said:


> I dig it too!
> 
> The first place he starts off is just insane. I did not expect that kind of interaction from just that simple kit and the places it was set up in! Under that concrete overpass with the pillars was just too much for it, and this is outside..
> 
> The auto garage I'm guessing with all the steel really aggravated that snare.
> 
> Very creative!


no doubt, I geek out over stuff like that. I've been into acoustics & sound, as well as light & photography. Learning waves, angles, sound & light & the environment, you try to learn to overcome the less than ideal circumstances.

I've been in many tragic situations performing & mixing. I remember playing the Univ of AZ & playing bass, I could not hear the bass, until it bounced off the back of the arena, almost 1 second later. I had to block out all listening reference to bass sound (& it was loud), but play to the drummer. The bass echoed about 1 second later. 

So, whenever I team up w/ a venue that I run into that sort of thing, I start the fight early on, convincing them, that a little sound engineering/design to control acoustics will get them a lot further along on their sound equipment investment.

The idea of music is an enjoyable experience. If everyone is fighting a nightmare of uncontrollable sound, nobody is having fun.

I've used this example before & people tend to not believe me, but, I played in this church, back in the '90s, where I plugged in 1 full SVT stack (300 watt & 8x10 fridge). The room was so tamed & cool, that they kept asking me to turn it up... until I had no more to give. I found that my SVT only got louder until about 6. then it just compressed & got fatter, until it oversaturated & started getting thinner.

Room acoustics are very important. Understanding them is important in fixing any issues. Then, understanding the issues, you learn about phase & wave distortion, etc. Now, take that to listening & using a capture device, like a microphone.

There's a lot of microphones out there. A lot of specialty mic's.

The SM57 is a general purpose workhorse. It can do a lot of things & if you know how to use it, you can use, say 30 mic's on a band & should be able to get stellar results overall.

But, if you have access to specialty mic's (which will cost a lot more) you can get 30 mic's that will be night & day to what the most experience guy can get w/ the SM57s. Obviously, you'd have to have someone equally skilled w/ the specialty mic's.

We live in a day of DIY & everybody's a producer, engineer, masterer, etc. So, we hear a lot of generic mixes, & it's become the norm.

One thing that strikes me as a real downward trend, is that now, w/ digital, you don't record the same, because, back in analogue, you had natural limiters in the recording devices & mediums. You would then, push the limits of the devices/mediums & come up w/ some real cool sounding stuff, w/ certain limits created in dynamic range, etc.

W/ digital, you can not clip your device/medium. So, staying under, the low points get lower. Some times, the dynamic range can be almost inaudible, because the dynamic range is too great. So, many inexperienced "producers" use brickwall limiters & compression to try & bring that dynamic range down to what analogue would have given.

Now we have the loud wars, where everything is loud & fatiguing to the ears, even at low volumes. Plus, instead of getting analogue warmth of pushing the clipping boundaries of tubes & tape, you get an unnatural distortion, further causing ear fatigue...

I don't blame digital, as much as the fact that it came into it's own, when the industry became a bunch of DIY'ers who are inexperience, but think that the loud wars are "it" as far as trendy production/master skills.

Once again, it's the lazy way. Yes, you need to do some limiting & compression, but, slamming the mix hard is not the way.

Same w/ learning mic'ing. Everything is subtle. Sure, you can start out w/ aggressive moves like, "shove the mic into the voice coil", but then it requires small finesse movements if you want to stick w/ that. Or, you can abandon that & pull the mic 3ft away, but once again, then you need to meticously try things at 3ft.

But, it helps to try & gain understanding in the other aspects, so that you know why you're doing what you're doing & what effects it'll have on the large scale & the subtleties.


----------



## _ripper_

Seventh Son said:


> As you'll find out, it is real hard. And just to make sure everyone gets me right, I am not knocking the way the amps sound in the room. Both my DSL15C and my DSL20CR sound amazing _in the room_. It's the _recording_ part that's a real bitch, due to the open-back construction and leakage of the meaty mids that give the tone bark and body in the room, but don't come across well in a recording.



Here's the thing though: why not just buy an extension closed back cab and work with that when recording. You're fighting an uphill battle - there's a reason why all those guys use closed back cabs in the studio. They have the means and resources to do anything, yet they (almost always) choose closed back cabs.

Having said that, here's a clip of an Iron Maiden cover we did a few years ago, with a Marshall JMP-1 preamp into the effect return of an open back combo amp mic'ed with a single SM57:



Cheers,
ripper


----------



## stringtree

Dogs of Doom said:


> https://www.parts-express.com/dayton-audio-emm-6-electret-measurement-microphone--390-801
> 
> there are many to choose from, even USB versions...
> 
> 
> no doubt, I geek out over stuff like that. I've been into acoustics & sound, as well as light & photography. Learning waves, angles, sound & light & the environment, you try to learn to overcome the less than ideal circumstances.
> 
> I've been in many tragic situations performing & mixing. I remember playing the Univ of AZ & playing bass, I could not hear the bass, until it bounced off the back of the arena, almost 1 second later. I had to block out all listening reference to bass sound (& it was loud), but play to the drummer. The bass echoed about 1 second later.
> 
> So, whenever I team up w/ a venue that I run into that sort of thing, I start the fight early on, convincing them, that a little sound engineering/design to control acoustics will get them a lot further along on their sound equipment investment.
> 
> The idea of music is an enjoyable experience. If everyone is fighting a nightmare of uncontrollable sound, nobody is having fun.
> 
> I've used this example before & people tend to not believe me, but, I played in this church, back in the '90s, where I plugged in 1 full SVT stack (300 watt & 8x10 fridge). The room was so tamed & cool, that they kept asking me to turn it up... until I had no more to give. I found that my SVT only got louder until about 6. then it just compressed & got fatter, until it oversaturated & started getting thinner.
> 
> Room acoustics are very important. Understanding them is important in fixing any issues. Then, understanding the issues, you learn about phase & wave distortion, etc. Now, take that to listening & using a capture device, like a microphone.
> 
> There's a lot of microphones out there. A lot of specialty mic's.
> 
> The SM57 is a general purpose workhorse. It can do a lot of things & if you know how to use it, you can use, say 30 mic's on a band & should be able to get stellar results overall.
> 
> But, if you have access to specialty mic's (which will cost a lot more) you can get 30 mic's that will be night & day to what the most experience guy can get w/ the SM57s. Obviously, you'd have to have someone equally skilled w/ the specialty mic's.
> 
> We live in a day of DIY & everybody's a producer, engineer, masterer, etc. So, we hear a lot of generic mixes, & it's become the norm.
> 
> One thing that strikes me as a real downward trend, is that now, w/ digital, you don't record the same, because, back in analogue, you had natural limiters in the recording devices & mediums. You would then, push the limits of the devices/mediums & come up w/ some real cool sounding stuff, w/ certain limits created in dynamic range, etc.
> 
> W/ digital, you can not clip your device/medium. So, staying under, the low points get lower. Some times, the dynamic range can be almost inaudible, because the dynamic range is too great. So, many inexperienced "producers" use brickwall limiters & compression to try & bring that dynamic range down to what analogue would have given.
> 
> Now we have the loud wars, where everything is loud & fatiguing to the ears, even at low volumes. Plus, instead of getting analogue warmth of pushing the clipping boundaries of tubes & tape, you get an unnatural distortion, further causing ear fatigue...
> 
> I don't blame digital, as much as the fact that it came into it's own, when the industry became a bunch of DIY'ers who are inexperience, but think that the loud wars are "it" as far as trendy production/master skills.
> 
> Once again, it's the lazy way. Yes, you need to do some limiting & compression, but, slamming the mix hard is not the way.
> 
> Same w/ learning mic'ing. Everything is subtle. Sure, you can start out w/ aggressive moves like, "shove the mic into the voice coil", but then it requires small finesse movements if you want to stick w/ that. Or, you can abandon that & pull the mic 3ft away, but once again, then you need to meticously try things at 3ft.
> 
> But, it helps to try & gain understanding in the other aspects, so that you know why you're doing what you're doing & what effects it'll have on the large scale & the subtleties.



Thanks for the heads up on the Dayton Audio EMM-6 mic!

Thats crazy the louder you went, the tone just got fatter and started to get thinner. I would not have thought that would be the case, I do believe you.

Recording, is an art form unto itself. I think a lot of DIY'ers miss that, myself included. I agree, so much of old school recording ways have been lost in the new digital world.

The convenience of unlimited tracks verses a 4 track. So much attention to detail right there is lost. Pressure produced focus, a different kind of listening was needed. If one wanted to have 7 tracks on a 4 track machine, one would have to ping pong / bounce tracks from 1,2,3 that were recorded, play those while recording the new part on track 4. Then erase tracks 1,2,3 for the new additional tracks.

Tracks 1,2,3 had to be perfected before the bounce, because you would not get them back after erased.

Amazing Sgt Pepper was recorded this way, if I recall right! 
I am unaware of any recorded digitally masterpieces...

I had a blast with my Yamaha 4 track recorder!






I never did get super great results with it, yet it was so much fun. Digital is a bit easier, and computer...well one can take a 5 minute jam with all kinds of good and bad playing, cut and paste, add effects and have a 1 minute master piece! LOL
At least in my world..LOL


----------



## Seventh Son

_ripper_ said:


> Here's the thing though: why not just buy an extension closed back cab and work with that when recording. You're fighting an uphill battle - there's a reason why all those guys use closed back cabs in the studio. They have the means and resources to do anything, yet they (almost always) choose closed back cabs.
> 
> Having said that, here's a clip of an Iron Maiden cover we did a few years ago, with a Marshall JMP-1 preamp into the effect return of an open back combo amp mic'ed with a single SM57:
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> ripper



Yeah, that was also what I was thinking. I'm going to go to the local store later this week and check out the MX112R extension cab that is part of the DSL line. I do have a 4x12" at home, but that is too much for home use.

More important, I wanted to bring this to everyone's attention, because everyone is happy to say, just put an SM57 somewhere near the grill cloth and you're good to go, which is true for closed-back cabs (except that you have to back off the mic about a foot from the amp to avoid nasty proximity effect bass build up), but is not true at all for open-back cabs, where close-miking is out of question, and distant-miking works better, but is not ideal. My guess is that using an LDC in the room, with the amp cranked very loud to really push those low mids (which is what open-back Marshall combos excel at), would work much, much better, but that would require an LDC etc., so a far cry from, "Oh, just stick an SM57 on the speaker and you're done."

Your performance of "Sanctuary" is excellent, but if I had to dissect the guitar tone, I'd say it does sound typical of a front-miked open-back cab. Lots of bass and low, low mids that sound slightly muddy and undefined _in the context of the mix_. My guess would be that it was recorded with an SM57 fairly close to the speaker, probably more near the edge or somewhere around the middle of the cone, away from the dust cap, possibly also with the amp on the floor and EQ-ed with lots of mids and low on Presence and Treble. It doesn't sound bad, but it isn't the '80s classic metal tone, nor is it a reasonable approximation of the early Maiden tone, which lives more in the treble region (due to the way a closed-back sounds), but with less distortion/compression than their mid-'80s and later output.


----------



## Derek S

Dogs of Doom said:


> Same w/ learning mic'ing. Everything is subtle. Sure, you can start out w/ aggressive moves like, "shove the mic into the voice coil", but then it requires small finesse movements if you want to stick w/ that.


So true about learning mic'ing, and the more these direct recording, all in one wonders spread (AXEFX, Kemper, etc) the art of mic'ing gets pushed even closer to extinction - for many, the digital short cut to decent, plug n play tones is just too alluring to be concerned with all the time and energy people like Seventh Son are tackling right now.

Your mic placement with subtle, finesse movements point reminded me of a funny experience. A drummer/close friend used to bring his son to my house for guitar lessons...one day while I was out of the room for like a second the little rascal had grabbed one of my cab mics that had been meticulously placed (like 2 days worth of scratch tracking, repositioning, repeat, etc, until satisfied) and as I walked back in he was jumping around, singing and dancing with it like he was on stage, pffft. I wanted to kill him LOL!!! I explained to my friend about the process and he apologized. Told him it was no biggie really as I had already taken a pic and marked my spots. He made me feel guilty the next time I spoke to him though because I guess he scolded him when they left that day and said the boy felt so bad he was crying (he was around 9 or 10).

These days I have my recording cab and mic setup in a treated area and just tell people that stay in that room as guests..."see those mics, don't so much as touch them or I'll kill ya."


----------



## stringtree

Seventh Son said:


> Yeah, that was also what I was thinking. I'm going to go to the local store later this week and check out the MX112R extension cab that is part of the DSL line. I do have a 4x12" at home, but that is too much for home use.
> 
> More important, I wanted to bring this to everyone's attention, because everyone is happy to say, just put an SM57 somewhere near the grill cloth and you're good to go, which is true for closed-back cabs (except that you have to back off the mic about a foot from the amp to avoid nasty proximity effect bass build up), but is not true at all for open-back cabs, where close-miking is out of question, and distant-miking works better, but is not ideal. My guess is that using an LDC in the room, with the amp cranked very loud to really push those low mids (which is what open-back Marshall combos excel at), would work much, much better, but that would require an LDC etc., so a far cry from, "Oh, just stick an SM57 on the speaker and you're done."



So what, your going to quit... You've done all your willing to try... What about the things you haven't tried...?

Have you tried making another back for you combo with an 8" diameter to focus the sound better to capture the mids....stuff a pillow in front of the cab and just record the back.

Have you tried miking just the front by itself and recording that. Then just miking the back and recording that and combined the two tracks for your desired sound....

Have you tried other options for mic choice....

Have you tried a different room.. How about empty a hall closet.... What about your clothes closet, keeping the clothes in the closet as sound absorption and control reflection from the front coming back to the mic behind....

Tone is subjective, and your answers are not the definitive for everyone. Your really hung up on this "Oh, just stick an SM57 on the speaker and you're done." Get past that, move on to the answer that is right for you! Sometimes trying to be right, stifles what one original sets out to do...


I would like to hear your open back combo, room ambiance captured recording.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Seventh Son said:


> Yeah, that was also what I was thinking. I'm going to go to the local store later this week and check out the MX112R extension cab that is part of the DSL line. I do have a 4x12" at home, but that is too much for home use.
> 
> More important, I wanted to bring this to everyone's attention, because everyone is happy to say, just put an SM57 somewhere near the grill cloth and you're good to go, which is true for closed-back cabs (except that you have to back off the mic about a foot from the amp to avoid nasty proximity effect bass build up), but is not true at all for open-back cabs, where close-miking is out of question, and distant-miking works better, but is not ideal. My guess is that using an LDC in the room, with the amp cranked very loud to really push those low mids (which is what open-back Marshall combos excel at), would work much, much better, but that would require an LDC etc., so a far cry from, "Oh, just stick an SM57 on the speaker and you're done."
> 
> Your performance of "Sanctuary" is excellent, but if I had to dissect the guitar tone, I'd say it does sound typical of a front-miked open-back cab. Lots of bass and low, low mids that sound slightly muddy and undefined _in the context of the mix_. My guess would be that it was recorded with an SM57 fairly close to the speaker, probably more near the edge or somewhere around the middle of the cone, away from the dust cap, possibly also with the amp on the floor and EQ-ed with lots of mids and low on Presence and Treble. It doesn't sound bad, but it isn't the '80s classic metal tone, nor is it a reasonable approximation of the early Maiden tone, which lives more in the treble region (due to the way a closed-back sounds), but with less distortion/compression than their mid-'80s and later output.


one thing to keep in mind...

I was going to post a big spiel about a discussion w/ a studio owner I had, back in the '80s. I might have touched on it earlier a little bit, but, anyway, when you are talking about Maiden, you are also talking about Martin Birch, who is definitely one of the masters. He is very good at production & he knows how to get a sound that captures the essence of a band live, in the studio...

Not to say that you can't get his results, but, he is someone who's had an arsenal of top mic's at his disposal, well before his tenure w/ Maiden. Also, having a dedicated studio, that is dedicated to not only getting the best sounds - the rooms are dedicated to that - the equipment is dedicated to that & when doing a big project like Piece of Mind, the studio is off limits to anyone else & don't touch anything.

Let's just say it took them 6 months to record. That means that nobody touched that head/cab/mic for most of that 6 months, or until they knew they had everything they needed w/ that particular set-up. Now, multiply that for the other guitar, bass, drums, etc. 

One of the biggest problems they'd have would be strings matching. I remember recording a few tracks one day & at the end of the day, I needed to punch in a bass tag, just to get it a little tighter. The problem though, was that my bass strings lost the brilliance that they had during the initial take. We ended up having to sample all 3 bass tracks (direct/cab close/distant) & then use a trigger to punch them in. Ended up being 2 notes, so we had to punch in (using the same process) twice.

There was another part, that I needed to play the song's outro over, because I used a pick during the band performance, but, I thought it sounded too mechanical, so I decided to punch in using fingers. I ended up using the later take. Sonically, it drives me batty, because the string brilliance loss at the climax of the song. Probably nobody else would notice, but I do...

Back, when I was talking about record contracts (a long time ago), we had the owner of the label ask us to pick a producer. We told him that if we could get:

Martin Birch
Max Norman
Dieter Dierks

we'd be pretty happy.

We ended up having our drummer get spooked off & the recording never happened...


----------



## Derek S

@Dogs of Doom...I'm just curious what your thoughts are on high end mic pre-amps too? Are they overrated, fairly important or even maybe guys can get by with average joe level pre's? Thanks.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Derek S said:


> @Dogs of Doom...I'm just curious what your thoughts are on high end mic pre-amps too? Are they overrated, fairly important or even maybe guys can get by with average joe level pre's? Thanks.


I don't think they are over-rated, but, what the average person should take into consideration is, that more that 50% of the people on the planet will not know. Chances are 50% of musicians, who claim to have a critical ear won't know (the difference).

Earlier I posted a link to Oade Bros. I bought a field recorder from Doug, some 10 years ago. Doug is a recorder mod'er. What does he mod (in a recorder)?

The pre-amp...

Why?

Read this little excerpt from his page:

https://www.oade.com/Tapers_Section/index.html

& exactly this tidbit:

https://www.oade.com/Tapers_Section/faq-general.html#C5



> *Do I need 16 or 24 bits ?*
> 
> 
> 
> Odds are if you are not sure, 16 bits are fine. If you want to make recordings for use as CDs or for MP3s, 16 bits is preferred. Keep in mind moving from 16 bits at 44.1 KHz, the CD sampling rate, to 24bit 48KHz, the DVD sampling rate, requires 50% more storage space, 24/96 doubles that storage requirement. This means you get less record time for a given memory card and less storage (i.e. recording time) on your hard drive or archive medium. If you are recording as a professional that is charged with archiving audio for the future use, 24/48 or even 24/96 is required.
> If you are recording music or sound that will undergo post production the additional resolution that 24 bits provides is helpful. If you are recording music for DVD, 24 bits is an improvement that is easy to hear. As a general rule of thumb the microphone is much more important than the use of 24 bits so if your budget is tight, spend more on the mic and less on the deck and storage. Simply stated the recording cannot possibly achieve better quality than the microphone is capable of delivering.
> The other significant consideration is the mic preamp. Many preamps for popular 24 bit machines use chips and capacitors that have artifacts that are down only 85dB to 95dB. If the signal you are recording is from a microphone, it is typically down 40dB to 50dB so the resulting dynamic range is 85dB to 95dB less 40dB to 50dB or not very good ! A 16 bit A/D chip has a dynamic range of 96dB, more than enough for these preamps.
> You want as much of a difference between the desirable signal and the residual noise and distortion of the preamp as possible. With an input signal down at -40dB to -60dB you need microphone preamp artifacts to be as low as possible as the preamp amplifies both the desirable signal and the undesirable artifacts. We use preamp chips with THD+N down from 110dB to 130dB that cost as much as 50 times what the stock chips cost.
> The result of low grade parts in a mic preamp is performance that is not even 16 bits, this makes 24 bits with a poor preamp of questionable value. A typical 24 bit machine's preamps Spurious Free Dynamic Range is no where near the 144dB dynamic range of 24bits and most do not even achieve 16 bit quality. Even some of the best op amps, the chips used in digital recorders, have no more than 120dB SFDR and most stock machines typically use chips that have a SFDR of less than a 96dB.


I think that gives a certain insight to certain considerations.

Think about what you are using. What are the inherent spec's? Dynamics? Noise? Frequency?

What's your end goal? (probably just as important as anything else)

I mean, if you are going to record a bunch of lo-fi stuff w/ no dynamics & broadcast over an AM radio, do you need all the highest of high stuff? Probably not. If you are thinking futuristic, to something that may have worth, or even sentimentally, it may be worth it to go full hog. Maybe not.

As w/ everything, there are trade-offs & compromises. When I was heavily into doing fashion photography, I was looking into camera theory (science). It's funny from where they started & how everything became a compromise between cost, quality, consistency, etc.

Back when Leica started developing their Leitz lenses, they had rave reviews about lens image sharpness, but, they found out that, while the subject was sharp, the background had terrible distortions. The sharper lenses would have a person sharp & in focus, but, alas, there are 2 moons in the background...

It's because of the aspheric distortions. They've come a long way since, especially w/ computer CNC glass polishers/grinders & plastics used in mounting systems, but, it wasn't always so. Realize though, that, when you look at optical equipment, back when 35mm was popular, you could buy a whole camera system from Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta, for what a single Leitz lens would cost.

Now, back to pre-amps & sound... There are similar thoughts when looking at quality vs cost vs actual real world usage. You have to decide what compromise is acceptable to you.

I was watching a video, the other day, of a guy doing drum sounds. He had a pretty cool set-up, & when he went into Pro Tools, he showed a lot of vst's at work. One thing I noticed was that, inspite of all the vst's he was running, his sound stayed very clean to what he was trying to accomplish.

Now, I don't remember all the spec's of what he was doing, but, many guys record at 32bit (floating) & 192khz. Keep in mind what Doug said above. You will need a strong CPU/RAM processing board to push this stuff. Plus storage...

Here's a snapshot of the recorder I bought:


----------



## stringtree

Open back combo amp using 3 mic positions.
With varying applications of them.



More traditional SM57 mic applications across the speaker.



Getting rid of the delay difference between
a close mic and a distant mic in a recording.


----------



## Seventh Son

Thanks to all for your help. Although I am familiar with how phase works, there were many things in the videos you all provided that were instructive, as were all your replies and constructive feedback.

I also wanted to add some information of my own to further the discussion. The following article and videos discuss the proximity effect. The interesting conclusion from the article is that all amp miking should be done with the microphone at least 12" away from the source (i.e., speaker). I have found this to be very true, which begs the question, Why do people, including countless professionals, such as the guys in the first video above this post and countless other Youtube tutorials, still insist on shoving a dynamic mic right on the grille, considering that the bass boost can be up to 20dB (that's massive!)?

https://ledgernote.com/columns/studio-recording/microphone-proximity-effect/

I am going to try a closed-back MX112R this weekend, as well as do some further testing on my open-back DSL combos, and will report back once I have been able to assess the results. I know that someone on here asked for an ambient recording of the open-back combo. That, too, will follow shortly, as I myself am interested to see what that would sound like.


----------



## stringtree

Seventh Son said:


> Thanks to all for your help. Although I am familiar with how phase works, there were many things in the videos you all provided that were instructive, as were all your replies and constructive feedback.
> 
> I also wanted to add some information of my own to further the discussion. The following article and videos discuss the proximity effect. The interesting conclusion from the article is that all amp miking should be done with the microphone at least 12" away from the source (i.e., speaker). I have found this to be very true, which begs the question, Why do people, including countless professionals, such as the guys in the first video above this post and countless other Youtube tutorials, still insist on shoving a dynamic mic right on the grille, considering that the bass boost can be up to 20dB (that's massive!)?
> 
> https://ledgernote.com/columns/studio-recording/microphone-proximity-effect/
> 
> I am going to try a closed-back MX112R this weekend, as well as do some further testing on my open-back DSL combos, and will report back once I have been able to assess the results. I know that someone on here asked for an ambient recording of the open-back combo. That, too, will follow shortly, as I myself am interested to see what that would sound like.



I do have a sincere interest in what you are trying to achieve.

I never had a problem with too much bass from close miking my cab as in the second video. I do hear where bass could be a problem in the first video, coming from behind the open back cabs mic. That is easy to fix, by just bringing down the fader to taste, or cutting some of the bass EQ on the board.

*What is Close Miking?*

*Why Is This Method Used?*
There are two main reasons for using this practice:


Isolating the signal from ambient noises
Isolating the signal from other instruments

The key here is the third bullet point though. It's when you want the cleanest, driest, truest signal possible.

It avoids most standing waves, flutters, echoes, and reverbs in a room without acoustic treatment.

The above is from the link below.
https://ledgernote.com/columns/studio-recording/close-miking/

Imo, close miking is just about the sound of the gear, and not the room its being played in.


----------



## stringtree

Just for some perspective...


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Seventh Son said:


> which begs the question, Why do people, including countless professionals, such as the guys in the first video above this post and countless other Youtube tutorials, still insist on shoving a dynamic mic right on the grille


as I noted earlier, it's the lazy way...

People think that it sounds fat & that fat is good...

This guy has a decent video. He has a mechanical robot arm that repositions the mic via remote.



Now, when I listen to his tracks, they sound really nice on here, but...

If you listen to the low end, you hear a low frequency, that, while it sounds good here, it would definitely muddy up a full track w/ bass & other instruments. Even though the bass is boomy on the guitar, that same frequency is in the upper, more mid-range (brilliance range) of the bass guitar, so, if you cut that frequency in the bass to make room for the guitar, then the bass will lose definition & truth be told, it's much harder to get a clean bass sound, than guitar. You are better off having a guitar sound minus that low end, than to have an undefined bass mix...

(edit) to be clear, the 1st position has that billowing bass. Then from there, he does a couple more positions, but you can hear the differences.

note: the 1st ½ is explaining his setup


----------



## Seventh Son

stringtree said:


> I do have a sincere interest in what you are trying to achieve.
> 
> I never had a problem with too much bass from close miking my cab as in the second video. I do hear where bass could be a problem in the first video, coming from behind the open back cabs mic. That is easy to fix, by just bringing down the fader to taste, or cutting some of the bass EQ on the board.
> 
> *What is Close Miking?*
> 
> *Why Is This Method Used?*
> There are two main reasons for using this practice:
> 
> 
> Isolating the signal from ambient noises
> Isolating the signal from other instruments
> 
> The key here is the third bullet point though. It's when you want the cleanest, driest, truest signal possible.
> 
> It avoids most standing waves, flutters, echoes, and reverbs in a room without acoustic treatment.
> 
> The above is from the link below.
> https://ledgernote.com/columns/studio-recording/close-miking/
> 
> Imo, close miking is just about the sound of the gear, and not the room its being played in.



My goal is twofold, where the first goal has priority:

Record an open-back amp so it _approximately_ sounds the way it sounds in the room.
Record a track that does not need fixing in the mix.
If you close-mike right on the grille, you'll get a huge proximity effect. Yes, you can fix it in the mix by high-passing everything above, say, 100Hz, but that will result in a somewhat unnatural tone; it is far better to get it right at the source, so that all frequencies fall together in a more natural way. As much as I like the idea and the advantages of close-miking, which are described in more detail in this useful article, I am finding that close-miking guitar cabs is not the best way to get a fairly faithful representation of how an amp sounds, especially open-back combos, where close-miking results in a tone that is nothing like what's heard in the room. Close-miking results in too big of a proximity effect and muddy guitars, as is fully explained here. If you listen to the isolated track below, you'll hear how mid-rangey the guitars sound on the last oh-oh-oh, where Dave plays an open E minor, and Adrian plays the gallop-rhythm on a 7th-fret E power chord (I think he also ads the low E string to the power chord). There is not a hint of proximity effect or bass build up. It's not necessarily my favorite guitar tone (hint: see my profile picture), but in terms of how the track sounds in isolation and in the mix, it is just perfect.



Another example from the same recording sessions is this cover Maiden recorded. Notice how well the guitars are placed in the mix.


You could probably get that kind of tone by close-miking a closed-back 4x12" and then high-passing everything above a certain number, say, 100Hz. I also read in an interview with Maiden that Birch used "mics everywhere" in a "big wooden room" and that "the room is really important."

I think if you want to record open-back Marshalls and get this kind of metal sound, you'd have to mike from a distance of more than 1 foot. I have tried recording the back of the cab from a distance of about 3 feet and found the result way too boomy, so boomy in fact, my ears are still shot from listening to the playback more than four days later.

My main goal with these posts, however, is to raise awareness of the issue with open-back cabs, as it is an enormous challenge to record them and get something that even resembles the amp in the room. Strangely, this issue is nowhere mentioned, not even in passing. I can imagine that there are many guitarists trying to record open-back combos or cabinets and wondering why their recordings sound extremely fizzy, boomy, woofy, muddy, and unnatural. The reasons is the construction/design of the cab coupled with the worst side-effects of close-miking.

I do not know what the best answer to the problem is, but I thought it would be a big step forward to bring awareness to the issue and introduce this problem into the discussion on recording electric guitars.


----------



## stringtree

Dogs of Doom said:


> as I noted earlier, it's the lazy way...
> 
> People think that it sounds fat & that fat is good...
> 
> This guy has a decent video. He has a mechanical robot arm that repositions the mic via remote.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, when I listen to his tracks, they sound really nice on here, but...
> 
> If you listen to the low end, you hear a low frequency, that, while it sounds good here, it would definitely muddy up a full track w/ bass & other instruments. Even though the bass is boomy on the guitar, that same frequency is in the upper, more mid-range (brilliance range) of the bass guitar, so, if you cut that frequency in the bass to make room for the guitar, then the bass will lose definition & truth be told, it's much harder to get a clean bass sound, than guitar. You are better off having a guitar sound minus that low end, than to have an undefined bass mix...
> 
> (edit) to be clear, the 1st position has that billowing bass. Then from there, he does a couple more positions, but you can hear the differences.
> 
> note: the 1st ½ is explaining his setup




Sorry for being so slow to get it. I do hear the bass in your video! It finally sunk in too, that when recording a whole band, how important it is to control things like to much bass from other sources that can ruin the bass track itself, and so on...

I have not been involved in recording full songs with a band in a very long time. I can see now how this would of helped me capture a more defined bass tone by eliminating the excess from other sources.

Of late, I was basically just recording my amp and cab thing for tone samples of just the rig itself. Not thinking how it would sound in the mix. 

If bass coming from a guitar amp is a problem, can't one just dial back a tad on the amp to fix this, without losing its tonal structure...no...?

I don't agree so much with one being lazy. Imo, its more from a lack of understanding the recording process as a whole, and better mic choices help too. It also depends what your after tone wise and what your trying to capture.

The Beatles even closed miked. I don't think George Martin was lazy..

I agree music has changed. Detuned guitars wanting more bass in their sound range. Bass being attributed to a heavier sound. We've all heard the car a block away, and passing by felt the bass too. Different styles of music, express it another way.


----------



## Seventh Son

Dogs of Doom said:


> as I noted earlier, it's the lazy way...
> 
> People think that it sounds fat & that fat is good...
> 
> This guy has a decent video. He has a mechanical robot arm that repositions the mic via remote.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, when I listen to his tracks, they sound really nice on here, but...
> 
> If you listen to the low end, you hear a low frequency, that, while it sounds good here, it would definitely muddy up a full track w/ bass & other instruments. Even though the bass is boomy on the guitar, that same frequency is in the upper, more mid-range (brilliance range) of the bass guitar, so, if you cut that frequency in the bass to make room for the guitar, then the bass will lose definition & truth be told, it's much harder to get a clean bass sound, than guitar. You are better off having a guitar sound minus that low end, than to have an undefined bass mix...
> 
> (edit) to be clear, the 1st position has that billowing bass. Then from there, he does a couple more positions, but you can hear the differences.
> 
> note: the 1st ½ is explaining his setup



I am familiar with the video you provided. Great video. I just recently came across it. Really insightful was his conclusion to the middle-of-cone position, 1/2" inch from the speaker: "Way too dark. Not really useable." I never saw it that way before, but I would have to agree. He's right.


----------



## stringtree

Seventh Son said:


> My goal is twofold, where the first goal has priority:
> 
> Record an open-back amp so it _approximately_ sounds the way it sounds in the room.
> Record a track that does not need fixing in the mix.
> *If you close-mike right on the grille, you'll get a huge proximity effect.*
> 
> My main goal with these posts, however, is to raise awareness of the issue with open-back cabs, as it is an enormous challenge to record them and get something that even resembles the amp in the room. Strangely, this issue is nowhere mentioned, not even in passing. I can imagine that there are many guitarists trying to record open-back combos or cabinets and wondering why their recordings sound extremely fizzy, boomy, woofy, muddy, and unnatural. The reasons is the construction/design of the cab coupled with the worst side-effects of close-miking.
> 
> *I do not know what the best answer to the problem is*,
> 
> *but I thought it was a big step forward to bring awareness to the issue and introduce this problem into the discussion on recording electric guitars.*



In video examples shared, I have heard an omnidirectional mic solves this. Just position to taste. Where as the directional mic can cause it, yet with better mic placement control it.

If one is aware of all aspects of recording, I don't think it is a problem, but of choice for whatever the reason.

I am very grateful for you discussing this. Imo, its knowledge that all DIY'ers would benefit to know.

My participation in this thread is to grow my recording skills in a simple digestible way, to better my knowledge of the recording process itself. Not to be lazy, but to be informed.

Yet, I don't want to be so bogged down with info that one loses the creative process because the circumstances were not right. This is my responsibility.

This even happened to the Beatles. Early days it was just about writing and performing in the studio. As they moved more into the control room, the weight of that knowledge was heavy, and then forming and running Apple well....

I am a singer songwriter. Recording for me, is ruff demos / scratch pad for ideas, catching inspiration....

Yet, if I am going to record, why not learn to do it better. My knowledge has grown so much from this thread, and I am sure it will reflect in my future recordings.


----------



## 67Mopar

Sounds cool!


----------



## Dogs of Doom

stringtree said:


> Of late, I was basically just recording my amp and cab thing for tone samples of just the rig itself. Not thinking how it would sound in the mix.
> 
> If bass coming from a guitar amp is a problem, can't one just dial back a tad on the amp to fix this, without losing its tonal structure...no...?


yes/no. That sound is the resonant capture of the cab box it's self. It's part of the characteristic of the cab that is not so easily heard in the room. It just sounds full. Dial it out & you could have a bottomless tone...


stringtree said:


> I don't agree so much with one being lazy. Imo, its more from a lack of understanding the recording process as a whole, and better mic choices help too. It also depends what your after tone wise and what your trying to capture.


Too lazy to learn to know any better. A lot of people are just happy, because they can get a strong signal that they can mix in. 


stringtree said:


> The Beatles even closed miked. I don't think George Martin was lazy..


If you look at those close mic's, they are not SM57s. Probably $13,000 Neumanns. Most likely tube mic's. Also, you see mic's hanging all over the room - other large condensor heads...



stringtree said:


> I agree music has changed. Detuned guitars wanting more bass in their sound range. Bass being attributed to a heavier sound. We've all heard the car a block away, and passing by felt the bass too. Different styles of music, express it another way.


Part of the allure of detuning so much, also, is that people don't have to have a vocal range so high. Opens the band up for more mediocre vocalists to shine...


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Seventh Son said:


> My goal is twofold, where the first goal has priority:
> 
> Record an open-back amp so it _approximately_ sounds the way it sounds in the room.
> Record a track that does not need fixing in the mix.
> If you close-mike right on the grille, you'll get a huge proximity effect. Yes, you can fix it in the mix by high-passing everything above, say, 100Hz, but that will result in a somewhat unnatural tone; it is far better to get it right at the source, so that all frequencies fall together in a more natural way. As much as I like the idea and the advantages of close-miking, which are described in more detail in this useful article, I am finding that close-miking guitar cabs is not the best way to get a fairly faithful representation of how an amp sounds, especially open-back combos, where close-miking results in a tone that is nothing like what's heard in the room. Close-miking results in too big of a proximity effect and muddy guitars, as is fully explained here. If you listen to the isolated track below, you'll hear how mid-rangey the guitars sound on the last oh-oh-oh, where Dave plays an open E minor, and Adrian plays the gallop-rhythm on a 7th-fret E power chord (I think he also ads the low E string to the power chord). There is not a hint of proximity effect or bass build up. It's not necessarily my favorite guitar tone (hint: see my profile picture), but in terms of how the track sounds in isolation and in the mix, it is just perfect.
> 
> 
> 
> Another example from the same recording sessions is this cover Maiden recorded. Notice how well the guitars are placed in the mix.
> 
> 
> You could probably get that kind of tone by close-miking a closed-back 4x12" and then high-passing everything above a certain number, say, 100Hz. I also read in an interview with Maiden that Birch used "mics everywhere" in a "big wooden room" and that "the room is really important."
> 
> I think if you want to record open-back Marshalls and get this kind of metal sound, you'd have to mike from a distance of more than 1 foot. I have tried recording the back of the cab from a distance of about 3 feet and found the result way too boomy, so boomy in fact, my ears are still shot from listening to the playback more than four days later.
> 
> My main goal with these posts, however, is to raise awareness of the issue with open-back cabs, as it is an enormous challenge to record them and get something that even resembles the amp in the room. Strangely, this issue is nowhere mentioned, not even in passing. I can imagine that there are many guitarists trying to record open-back combos or cabinets and wondering why their recordings sound extremely fizzy, boomy, woofy, muddy, and unnatural. The reasons is the construction/design of the cab coupled with the worst side-effects of close-miking.
> 
> I do not know what the best answer to the problem is, but I thought it would be a big step forward to bring awareness to the issue and introduce this problem into the discussion on recording electric guitars.



try putting your amp in the middle of the room. If the wall tuning is nothing but woof, tune the cab to the wall. Then try different mic'ings.


----------



## Seventh Son

Dogs of Doom said:


> try putting your amp in the middle of the room. If the wall tuning is nothing but woof, tune the cab to the wall. Then try different mic'ings.


I’m already pretty much doing that. I’ll do a recording tomorrow and post it, so you can hear the difference between standard close-miking and distant-miking (the amp in the room), and how there’s a huge loss in mids when only the front of the open-back combo is close-miked. Until then, here’s an interesting article to read: https://www.prosoundweb.com/topics/studio/removing_proximity_effect_with_hpfs_other_processing/

Also, I just want to reiterate something, lest people misunderstand what it is I am getting at here: If the whole problem with open-back combos and close-miking consisted of the proximity effect, the solution would be very simple: just back off the mic.

The issue is, however, not that simple. With open-back combos, important mid- and treble frequencies are leaking out the back and not making it in sufficient quantity to the front mic, so that the mic is picking up mostly fizz from close-miking. Even when the mic is backed off, say, 3 feet from the speaker, the result is much improved but still lacking in mid-frequency girth, which is crucial for the guitar sound and in the mix. One of the recordings I am going to post tomorrow is a room recording of the amp, so you can hear how the amp should sound on the recording. Stay tuned!


----------



## Seventh Son

As promised, below is a really interesting comparison. Three "The Trooper" takes, with the following setups, in the order that they appear in the recording.

DSL15C Combo with V30 *near-miked at 1"* cap meets cone
DSL15C Combo with V30 *distant-miked at ca. 5 feet*
DSL15C Combo through a *closed-back MX112 with a 70/80, near-miked at 1"* cap meets cone


I know there are some differences in the speakers, etc., but I think the results can be generalized.

After spending half a day experimenting with the cab, my conclusions are as follows.

The closed-back cab definitely has more mids and records comparatively better than the open-back cab.
Even with mids on 10, the MX112R does not come even close to the amount of mids I get from hooking up the amp to my 1960A and with mids set at 2.
The only way to match the tone of the 1960A is by radically EQ-ing the mids in the DAW.
Bottom line: Not worth the hassle or the extra money spent. The MX112R is going back tomorrow and I am just going to use the 4x12" at home to record. Set it and forget it.


----------



## stringtree

Seventh Son said:


> As promised, below is a really interesting comparison. Three "The Trooper" takes, with the following setups, in the order that they appear in the recording.
> 
> DSL15C Combo with V30 *near-miked at 1"* cap meets cone
> DSL15C Combo with V30 *distant-miked at ca. 5 feet*
> DSL15C Combo through a *closed-back MX112 with a 70/80, near-miked at 1"* cap meets cone
> 
> 
> I know there are some differences in the speakers, etc., but I think the results can be generalized.





Great Job!! 

I like them in this order: 2,3,1

I've never done 1 inch from cap meets cone... Don't like that at all.
I am surprised that 2 sounds louder to me than 1. 1 sounds like a blanket over it, and I like 3 better for that reason that it don't....

I am guessing that 2 would sound great in the mix, no fixing that tone. 3 is mid and bass heavy, depending on guitar parts being played. Starting to see the light of recording with an open back combo 5 feet away!

Good work Seventh Son!!


----------



## Seventh Son

stringtree said:


> Great Job!!
> 
> I like them in this order: 2,3,1
> 
> I've never done 1 inch from cap meets cone... Don't like that at all.
> I am surprised that 2 sounds louder to me than 1. 1 sounds like a blanket over it, and I like 3 better for that reason that it don't....
> 
> I am guessing that 2 would sound great in the mix, no fixing that tone. 3 is mid and bass heavy, depending on guitar parts being played. Starting to see the light of recording with an open back combo 5 feet away!
> 
> Good work Seventh Son!!


I updated my post above as you were replying to it. Basically, the closed-back 1x12" is an improvement (more mids and more focus), but only in relatively terms. When compared to a closed-back 4x12", it is not even close. The 4x12" essentially mixes itself, whereas with the 1x12", I'd have to EQ the tone radically in the DAW. Not worth the money that I was trying to spend to not have to do that. So, the MX112R is going back to the store tomorrow. Basically, if anyone is looking to _record_ rock or metal, I recommend a 4x12", no question. The smaller open-back and closed-back cabs are not bad for live playing, but for recording, they're not the right tool. I am glad I have finally figured this out. Now I can focus on having fun, and not fighting an uphill battle with my gear.


----------



## stringtree

Seventh Son said:


> I updated my post above as you were replying to it. Basically, the closed-back 1x12" is an improvement (more mids and more focus), but only in relatively terms. When compared to a closed-back 4x12", it is not even close. The 4x12" essentially mixes itself, whereas with the 1x12", I'd have to EQ the tone radically in the DAW. Not worth the money that I was trying to spend to not have to do that. So, the MX112R is going back to the store tomorrow. Basically, if anyone is looking to _record_ rock or metal, I recommend a 4x12", no question. The smaller open-back and closed-back cabs are not bad for live playing, but for recording, they're not the right tool. I am glad I have finally figured this out. Now I can focus on having fun, and not fighting an uphill battle with my gear.




So what gear is used for the second tone..? Do I understand correctly, it was your DSL15C Combo with V30 in it...?
I am not crazy about that 1x12 either.


----------



## Seventh Son

stringtree said:


> So what gear is used for the second tone..? Do I understand correctly, it was your DSL15C Combo with V30 in it...?
> I am not crazy about that 1x12 either.


In the second tone, I used the DSL15C with the built-in V30, miked at about 4–5 feet away.

I think the MX112R cab is not bad, but only in comparison to the combo. But trust me, the difference between the MX112R and 1960A was night and day in terms of midrange (and tightness). They weren't even in the same universe.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

that's one of the problems w/ MDF or HDF cab's. They don't project the midrange like plywood & get woofy, when pushed.

If you add a baltic birch plywood back to your 1960, you'll notice a big bump in midrange. Some people don't like it, as it sounds a bit unwieldy, but, it cuts in a mix a lot better...

I have a couple 1912 cab's & they sound pretty good, although, ironically, I like my AVT112 better, which is MDF, but, because it's an oversized 1x12, it sounds more full.

Don't discount an oversized 1x12. Quite a few guys on here have opedered some from Sourmash & are totally happy w/ them.

The thing that sucks though, is that you can't just try them out, like a shootout before buying.

The thing though, is that you are figuring out things & maybe, in the future, when you want to take the next step, you'll be more informed/experienced going forward...


----------



## Seventh Son

Dogs of Doom said:


> that's one of the problems w/ MDF or HDF cab's. They don't project the midrange like plywood & get woofy, when pushed.
> 
> If you add a baltic birch plywood back to your 1960, you'll notice a big bump in midrange. Some people don't like it, as it sounds a bit unwieldy, but, it cuts in a mix a lot better...
> 
> I have a couple 1912 cab's & they sound pretty good, although, ironically, I like my AVT112 better, which is MDF, but, because it's an oversized 1x12, it sounds more full.
> 
> Don't discount an oversized 1x12. Quite a few guys on here have opedered some from Sourmash & are totally happy w/ them.
> 
> The thing that sucks though, is that you can't just try them out, like a shootout before buying.
> 
> The thing though, is that you are figuring out things & maybe, in the future, when you want to take the next step, you'll be more informed/experienced going forward...


I get more mids from my 1960A than I could ever wish for. For example, to get a tone almost identical to the isolated tracks in "The Trooper" that I posted above, and that are extremely mid-rangey, my DSL15C settings with the 1960A are:
Bass 2
Middle 4
Treble 6
And even that is almost a bit too mid-rangey, but it is in the ballpark of that kind of tone. And the tone is very beefy. No need to double track or do any other fancy tricks to beef up the track. It just sounds right.

I doubt that the big difference is due to type of wood, and now I also know that it is for the most part _not_ due to open-back vs. closed-back construction (true, there is a difference between the two, but not big enough to compete with a 4x12"). Based on my experience so far, I would say it is most likely due to one or both of the following: (1) cab size and/or (2) interaction of four nonidentical speakers that create subtle phase cancellation and a subtle chorusing effect, and thus filter out frequencies above and below the midrange, resulting in a perceived tight tone.


----------



## stringtree

Seventh Son said:


> I doubt that the big difference is due to type of wood, *and now I also know that it is for the most part not due to open-back vs. closed-back construction (true, there is a difference between the two, but not big enough to compete with a 4x12"*).



Everything plays a part, in what one gets tonal wise concerning construction and materials...

Imo, I think what DIY'ers, myself included overlook when recording is, how the guitar is going to sit in the mix. Not to bring in all the extra mids and a bass, unless so desired.

To me, you proved by your second clip that one can record the guitar sound with not having to fix it later. I see the light of an open back combo in the studio and its value that I did consider before. The open back combo dumps the mids and bass and gives a more balanced recording. The mids and bass are still in the room, as heard in that first video of the three I posted, just have been dispersed into the room from the back of the combo...

What would be cool is if you would please do a clip of that same second track setup, against that same mic setup for a 4x12. I would like to hear what your saying...

I was shocked what was coming from the 1x12. Dogs of Doom has stated that an oversized cab for a 1x12 would sound better.


----------



## Jakeboy

SmokeyDopey said:


> Depends what sound you're going for. Sometimes that's the sound you need.



This so true. It all depends. Everything affects everything else. I achieve great results using a Cascade Fathead II ribbon mic in front of an open back tweed Champ or 5e3. 

I suspect most people think Blackface, scooped Fender amps when they think open-back. Maybe not. Sometime I use a room mic, sometimes not. It all depends upon the tone I am looking for. My sound is the ribbon mic.
But I’ll slap a Senn906 or an Audix i5 right on the grill if that is the classic tone I am looking for.It depends upon what the track and song are calling for....or demanding of me!


----------



## Seventh Son

stringtree said:


> Everything plays a part, in what one gets tonal wise concerning construction and materials...
> 
> Imo, I think what DIY'ers, myself included overlook when recording is, how the guitar is going to sit in the mix. Not to bring in all the extra mids and a bass, unless so desired.
> 
> To me, you proved by your second clip that one can record the guitar sound with not having to fix it latter. I see the light of an open back combo in the studio and its value that I did consider before. The open back combo dumps the mids and bass and gives a more balanced recording. The mids and bass are still in the room, as heard in that first video of the three I posted, just have been dispersed into the room from the back of the combo...
> 
> What would be cool is if you would please do a clip of that same second track setup, against that same mic setup for a 4x12. I would like to hear what your saying...
> 
> I was shocked what was coming from the 1x12. Dogs of Doom has stated that an oversized cab for a 1x12 would sound better.


I respectfully disagree. The problem with open-back 1x12" is that the mids leak out the back, leaving you with a fizzy tone, where the only way to recapture some of the lost mids from close-miking in the front is to move the mic farther back, so that you're basically distant-miking/ambient-miking. Hooking the amp up to a closed back 1x12" improves the situation somewhat, but the gain in mids is still not enough. I can't even begin to tell you just how important mids are in order for electric guitars to sit right in the mix. I took one of my recent open-back combo recordings last night and drastically upped the midrange, and cut the highs in Garageband, and the guitars finally sounded right in the mix. By being very midrangey, they not only occupied the correct frequency spectrum in the mix in order to be heard, but they also, paradoxically, blended better with the rest of the instruments. But, don't just take my word for. Let your own ears be the judge. Below is a quick example. One is just an open-back DSL15C miked about a foot or two away from the speaker, and the other is the same recording, but with a heavy lift in the mids, a very slight boost in bass, and a big cut in highs in Garageband. Notice how much better the guitars sound and sit in the mix in the EQ'ed version.


I disagree that everything makes a big difference. Yes, I do agree that the type of wood matters, to an extent, and so does the open-back vs. closed-cab (for recording only, but the differences are not big enough to explain why a 4x12" sounds so much better in the mix and doesn't need any EQ-ing, if done right. The difference would have to lie in either the way that the four speakers interact and create phase cancellations and a slight chorusing effect, lending the sound a nice shimmer and combing/cutting certain low and high frequencies to achieve that cutting guitar tone that we all have in our head, or in the size of the cab, or both: size + number of speakers. The closed-back construction is a variable that does make some difference, but it is not a difference that is worth spending money on—all else held equal—as in order to get the guitars to sit well in the mix and sound like guitars should with a closed-back 1x12", I had to set mids to almost 10 on my amp and then go in to Garageband and do another heavy mid lift. With a 4x12", none of that is necessary. I can have my mids on 4, and that is already more than enough, requiring no further mid-doctoring in the DAW.

tl;dr If you want a metal guitar tone _on recordings_, get a 4x12".


----------



## Seventh Son

An interesting and thought-provoking article advocating placing an SM57 almost touching the grille, at the center of the cone, and also claiming that "it [the SM57] has an ideal frequency response curve for most guitar cabinets...The SM57 has a steady rolloff from 200 Hz down, allowing for on-the-grille miking without battling proximity effect or flabby frequencies from the cab itself."
https://recordingmag.com/resources/recording-info/mics-miking/capturing-the-cab/
I haven't had much luck with that approach, but I will give it another chance and see what happens.


----------



## Seventh Son

The following is a recording I did with a DSL15C into a stock 1960A, close-miked almost on the grille, with an SM57 almost at the center of the speaker, angled about 20˚ toward the center. I used the following settings.
Bass 4
Middle 4
Treble 6
Presence 5
Gain 4
Volume 1.5



Surprisingly, compared to the same recording but with the mic about 12" from the grille, there isn't much more bass build-up with the mic on the grille (probably due to the angle). The only big difference is that the guitars sound a little more present on the close-miked song.

I invite everyone to offer their critique of the recording. What do you think? What could be improved?


----------



## Seventh Son

I did another recording, but this time with the DSL15C and the built-in speaker, close mic'ed with an SM-57 just outside the cap, right on the grille, with the same settings and everything as in the preceding post. I have to say that I really like the way the combo sounds. It seems like I get better results pushing the amp with volume at 1.5 through just one speaker than through 4 speakers. It results in a more harmonically rich and usable tone.

What do you guys think? Do you like this one better or the previous one?


----------



## Jakeboy

That makes sense....often going through one speaker focuses all the wattage through that one speaker, not dispersed over four...so thespeaker is getting slammed with the full Monte....and sometimes that is just the ticket, though with Marshalls, I typically find more speakers are better, even when recording, but good on you.


----------



## Seventh Son

Jakeboy said:


> That makes sense....often going through one speaker focuses all the wattage through that one speaker, not dispersed over four...so thespeaker is getting slammed with the full Monte....and sometimes that is just the ticket, though with Marshalls, I typically find more speakers are better, even when recording, but good on you.


What do you think of the tone on the last recording? How did it sound to you?


----------



## BftGibson

my studio guy mics my gt75, v30 in my closed back & V type or crate celestion 60watt greenie. in semi open back, sounds excellent..he picks up my sound..just as i play at home and captures it..2 57's and some older type...my semi open is a killer cab..even outdoors


----------



## Seventh Son

BftGibson said:


> my studio guy mics my gt75, v30 in my closed back & V type or crate celestion 60watt greenie. in semi open back, sounds excellent..he picks up my sound..just as i play at home and captures it..2 57's and some older type...my semi open is a killer cab..even outdoors


What type of cab is it when you're recording and how do you mic it up specifically? I've found that when recording 4x12's, a mic dead on center works best. With open-back combos, just outside the cap is best, with the mic slight angled toward the cap. I found some old footage of Maiden in the studio and observed that is how Martin Birch apparently mic'ed up the cabs, with the mic angled slightly, in addition to using multiple room mics. I personally prefer the simplicity and convenience of just one mic, whenever feasible.


----------



## BftGibson

i use 2 2x12 cabs in studio..both are very punchy,he moves mic around and some times he double mic's the same speaker.strait & angle..2 mics on same

capture a complete sound also


----------



## BftGibson

found a pic as we were setting up to record


----------



## BftGibson

my semi open cab


----------



## steveb63

Hello Marshall bros.,

A simple question re: microphones used for guitar recording. 

I'm familiar with the SM 57, and the Sennheiser models. 

Looking for some suggestions, as diverse as the demographics on this site, I know there has to be a few more for me to test, consider etc..

Thanks for the suggestions. 
Steve


----------



## Seventh Son

steveb63 said:


> Hello Marshall bros.,
> 
> A simple question re: microphones used for guitar recording.
> 
> I'm familiar with the SM 57, and the Sennheiser models.
> 
> Looking for some suggestions, as diverse as the demographics on this site, I know there has to be a few more for me to test, consider etc..
> 
> Thanks for the suggestions.
> Steve


An SM57 is all you really need. If you want to try something more advanced, you can try the Fredman technique or the X-Y technique with two SM57s, for example. An SM57 and an MD421 are also a popular combo. Kevin Shirley likes to combine an SM57 with a Beyerdynamic M201 (extended bass range) in an X-Y pattern. Personally, I’ve researched all of them and still think the SM57 works best for electric guitar.


----------



## steveb63

Thanks,

I'm really getting that, overwhelmingly recommended .

I believe i will pick up at least 2, to try out some of the methods you've recommended .

Thanks Again for your time
Steve


----------



## Seventh Son

steveb63 said:


> Thanks,
> 
> I'm really getting that, overwhelmingly recommended .
> 
> I believe i will pick up at least 2, to try out some of the methods you've recommended .
> 
> Thanks Again for your time
> Steve


There’s one school of thought that maintains that one SM57 is all you need, and that unless you can make good recordings with one SM57, you shouldn’t move on to multi-mic’ing. The other school of thought is that two (and sometimes three) microphones are necessary in order to capture a more complete representation of an amp’s sound. I think you can make very high-quality recordings with just one SM57, almost right on the grille, where cap and cone meet. According to an expert I spoke with today, the introduction of a second microphone in the Fredman technique will lead to additional improvements by reducing fizz and adding body, and therefore obviating the need to quad-track.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

There's too many mic choices to really give you any direction, unless someone has experience w/ different mic's.

I am using my Kemper now, for ease & great tone w/o trying, but, when I was last hooked up, I was simply using a pair of Sennheiser MK4 in an ISO box, mic'ing 2- 1912 cab's, 1, w/ a H30 & 1 w/ a V30...




both mic's positioned at the edge of the dust cap, rotated away from the center at about 35-45º away, depending on which speaker is which.

I would also mix a simulated out DI into the board & use that for my effects channel. So, I'd have a dry stereo channel, due to the 2 different speakers & a stereo effects running from the mono out...

Made for a killer tone...

I have used a lot of different mic config's. I've also used my Sennheiser 421, my Beyerdynamic M500 ribbons, My EV N/D468 mic's, my AT849 boundary, or whatever over the years.

I personally gave away all my SM57 mic's a couple decades ago & never turned back. A buddy of mine swears by his Made in USA SM57. Mine were all MiM, from the '90s. The cheap Audio Technica copies (MIJ) were better mic's at ½ the cost.

I've worked for a couple sound companies & used to run one myself. I've also worked in a few studios that have a plethora of expensive mic's. Back when Guitar Center 1st started branching out, I used to do mic shootouts in-store every few months, just to compare everything they had in stock & to keep up on the lines.

I'm not up on all the new mic's out, but, as far as the old ones, I know quite a bit, but, there's people who know way more than me, because there's literally thousands of mic's.

Not all mic's work the same, nor can they be compared straight, one for another. For instance, my Beyer ribbons, they have a distinct distortion in the upper midrange, that is their voice. Some people may, or may not like that sound. It makes them warm to me. They do not work w/ every guitar sound though. Some stuff will sound brittle.

The Mk4's have an amazingly accurate sound. Sounds just like the cabinet. They can be a little hi-fi, but, if positioned right, they give me the best sound that I've ever gotten from a mic. That said, I would have to do a more permanent custom mount for them in the ISO box, to ever take them out live - studio only at this point...

You can mix/match many different mic's & use them in certain configurations, but, then you need to learn room acoustics, phase, recording patterns, etc.

It's all about trying things w/ what you have. A lot of people are happy just shoving an SM57 into the speaker, if that's you, fine, but do know that there's a whole world outside of that...


----------



## SmokeyDopey

SM57 + MD421
My go-to mic combo for guitar/bass cabs (when available).

I've tried other combinations, and got interesting results. Usually with overdubs I experiment more, but for straight up rock guitar tone for basic tracking I go for those two.


----------



## steveb63

Thanks for all the info guys.
It seems that this is one of those subjects that you can spend a lifetime with.

I really think for my plebe status the best thing, for me, will be getting a mic., make some recordings, then come to you experienced engineer types.

I'm going to order two mics today, spend the next couple of weeks trying out different ideas, then asking for help when I run across issues that I will be needing help with.

As always, I can't thank you folks enough for the free sharing of your knowledge and time.
Please know how much it's appreciated!

You guys rock
Steve


----------



## steveb63

Addendum to previous post:

I think there's an iso box in my future.

I KNOW there's an iso box in my future!

Steve


----------



## BftGibson

Seventh Son said:


> There’s one school of thought that maintains that one SM57 is all you need, and that unless you can make good recordings with one SM57, you shouldn’t move on to multi-mic’ing. The other school of thought is that two (and sometimes three) microphones are necessary in order to capture a more complete representation of an amp’s sound. I think you can make very high-quality recordings with just one SM57, almost right on the grille, where cap and cone meet. According to an expert I spoke with today, the introduction of a second microphone in the Fredman technique will lead to additional improvements by reducing fizz and adding body, and therefore obviating the need to quad-track.


my studio guy mic's 3. 57 strait, angle & 3rd is a condenser type..you can see the placement dif on the graph(not my thing-i use ears) but it shows how you can record the frequencies from low to high.our method V30 & gt75(both of these jcm era 800& first edition Vintage & always 1 green back of choice) you have all freq covered without forcing a speaker to to something it is not designed to do. Live i always mic gt75v30) then i grt the most balanced sound coming out the PA..sounds full-even


----------



## Seventh Son

steveb63 said:


> Thanks for all the info guys.
> It seems that this is one of those subjects that you can spend a lifetime with.
> 
> I really think for my plebe status the best thing, for me, will be getting a mic., make some recordings, then come to you experienced engineer types.
> 
> I'm going to order two mics today, spend the next couple of weeks trying out different ideas, then asking for help when I run across issues that I will be needing help with.
> 
> As always, I can't thank you folks enough for the free sharing of your knowledge and time.
> Please know how much it's appreciated!
> 
> You guys rock
> Steve


As you start practicing, keep in mind that it can take years to train your ear to hear sound more from the perspective of the microphone. If you're anything like me, you'll initially experience a lot of frustration, often end up chasing a moving target, going one step forward, then one step back, until you eventually make a pact with the fact that close mic'ing is different from listening in the room. Be prepared to stretch your patience and persistence to their limits. The good news is that the more time you spend practicing recording technique and talking to other people, the better you will get over time.


----------



## steveb63

Righton 
Thanks for the encouragement. 

Persistence I have, not so sure on patience ....

I have a feeling this won't be my last question re: this subject. I'm just starting to dive into recording levels next.

So, a long way of saying thanks in advance, probably not the last word from me lol...

Appreciate the sage advice bro
Steve


----------



## Dogs of Doom

steveb63 said:


> Addendum to previous post:
> 
> I think there's an iso box in my future.
> 
> I KNOW there's an iso box in my future!
> 
> Steve


For my ISO box, I found a guy, selling an anvil case, that measures around 44" (wide) x 33" (tall) x 24" (depth). It comes w/ 2" fairly dense foam on all inside surfaces. Where the top (lid) comes off, there's an air tight seal. I decided to drill holes, right where the seal is, for the wires. I drilled the holes just smaller than the wires, so that when I seal the cab, the wires get crimped, so that they are air tight as well.

I paid $60 for the case & it serves me well...

Of course, I already had the 1912 cab's in mind & bought those, but, it also works w/ my other 112 cab, which is oversized & only 1 cab fits w/ it. I could put a 4x12 in it too, but, I'd have to have the top off. It would isolate the bottom 2 speakers well enough, for recording & leave the top 2 speakers open for monitoring, but, if I was wanting pure isolation, I'd use a 1x12, or 2, like in the picture above.

If you are really sure that you want an ISO, there are ways to go. Just look into it, use a bit of ingenuity & keep your eyes peeled for stuff on the used market, or figure out ways to do it new & on a decent budget. Some people simply convert a walk-in closet, by putting sound absorption material &/or soundproofing on the walls/door & just put the cab in the closet & shut the door. Just have to make sure that you don't have any jangling coat hangers or racks...

There was a guy on here, that built his own ISO box. Just bought some plywood, & got some foam. Built it so that his cab would fit & house a mic & foam.

One thing, w/ ISO boxes. You do want to have some internal volume (room), or the mic will sound cold & boxy. You want to make sure that the sound waves can travel past the mic & that there is some sort of acoustics in the box.


----------



## steveb63

Dogs of Doom said:


> For my ISO box, I found a guy, selling an anvil case, that measures around 44" (wide) x 33" (tall) x 24" (depth). It comes w/ 2" fairly dense foam on all inside surfaces. Where the top (lid) comes off, there's an air tight seal. I decided to drill holes, right where the seal is, for the wires. I drilled the holes just smaller than the wires, so that when I seal the cab, the wires get crimped, so that they are air tight as well.
> 
> I paid $60 for the case & it serves me well...
> 
> Of course, I already had the 1912 cab's in mind & bought those, but, it also works w/ my other 112 cab, which is oversized & only 1 cab fits w/ it. I could put a 4x12 in it too, but, I'd have to have the top off. It would isolate the bottom 2 speakers well enough, for recording & leave the top 2 speakers open for monitoring, but, if I was wanting pure isolation, I'd use a 1x12, or 2, like in the picture above.
> 
> If you are really sure that you want an ISO, there are ways to go. Just look into it, use a bit of ingenuity & keep your eyes peeled for stuff on the used market, or figure out ways to do it new & on a decent budget. Some people simply convert a walk-in closet, by putting sound absorption material &/or soundproofing on the walls/door & just put the cab in the closet & shut the door. Just have to make sure that you don't have any jangling coat hangers or racks...
> 
> There was a guy on here, that built his own ISO box. Just bought some plywood, & got some foam. Built it so that his cab would fit & house a mic & foam.
> 
> One thing, w/ ISO boxes. You do want to have some internal volume (room), or the mic will sound cold & boxy. You want to make sure that the sound waves can travel past the mic & that there is some sort of acoustics in the box.


Thanks , appreciate the wisdom. 

I've been lurking around and have definitely read all your posts on this subject. 

Just starting to get my studio gear together, and have decided that miking a real speaker is going to be one of my main methods for capturing most of my guitar tones.

I also am hoping that the other guys I play with dig it, and live we can get large tone with lower volume.

Hope along my journey you don't mind if I p.m. you on specific issues?

Peace 
Steve


----------



## Seventh Son

Here's an interesting link explaining exactly, down to the last detail, how the X-Y technique works.
http://www.audiotechnology.com/PDF/TUTORIALS/AT38_Guitar_Amp_mic_technique.pdf

To stay inside the radius of the speaker, make sure to keep the two mics closer than 6" from the dust cap if you're recording a 12" speaker. It sounds that this would be suited only for recording with two different mics (either a dynamic and a condenser, as demonstrated in the article, or two different dynamics, such as Kevin Shirley's preference for an SM57 and an M201). You could also try this with one mic, as positioning the mic that way will aim to capture the top end and the bottom end with a single mic.


----------



## SmokeyDopey

Kind of unrelated, but I wanted to share.
Speaking of guitars... I've been recording for a while, back in the day, with cassette decks. But I never heard what a good recording sounded like through quality speakers. I mean hi-fi, or a nice big pair of studio speakers. Maybe 10 years ago (maybe a little less) I heard Sad But True from Metallica's black album in this small studio I was taking a course in. The 1st few classes were just going over general information, then after a few classes we went to the control room.
The teacher put that song on, loud.
The hair on the back of my neck stood up. I knew that song from when I was a young teen but I never heard it like this. My breathing was also a bit faster, blood pumping. Holy _shit, _those guitars. I wouldn't be surprised if my eyes got a little moist too. I was changed after that day, lol


----------



## Seventh Son

I just wanted to let you guys know that I have figured out all my issues with recording. It turns out, the problem was at the source; Marshalls are very tricky to dial in. To get Iron Maiden's _Piece of Mind_ tone, I used the following settings on my DSL15C.
Bass 2
Middle 8
Treble 0
Presence 10
Gain 6
The key to the tone was turning the treble all the way down. _That_, and not the Presence knob, is what was causing the thin, almost out-of-phase sounding guitar tones. Since it seemed logical to keep Presence at 5 or below to avoid fizz, the fact that I had my Presence set so low wasn't helping either, as that shifted the mids lower and made them sound harsh. However, once I had the issues sorted out at the source, recording was a breeze. I found that a simple, on-axis SM57 on the speaker cloth was literally all it took to get a very good direct tone. I could have added a room mic, which does fill out the sound even more, but I found it wasn't absolutely necessary. The resulting guitars with just one mic sounded great and sat great in the mix, needing no further processing in the DAW. Here is the finished recording.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Michael Schenker runs his presence at 10 & his treble at around 0.8 as a standard tone...


----------



## Seventh Son

Dogs of Doom said:


> Michael Schenker runs his presence at 10 & his treble at around 0.8 as a standard tone...


That would make sense now, based on my experience. Which was very counterintuitive, because conventional wisdom tells us that Presence should be kept at bay and Treble used for "bite." In practice, Presence is what gives the mids their creaminess and "bite," whereas Treble does something to the tone that makes it sound like it is out-of-phase. I am from now on a firm believer in keeping Treble either at 0 or near zero, as Schenker does. This solution did not occur to me until I researched how the Marshall tone stack works and read somewhere on a website that the Treble knob controls frequencies around 10k, whereas the Presence knob affects frequencies around 2k. The latter value didn't sound quite right to me—and it probably isn't—but it gave me a new approach to try, and in the end it worked, which is all that matters.
A few more things I have learned from the experience and would like to pass on to my fellow aspiring recordists.

There's no real need for multiple mics.
An SM57 picks up the source very faithfully. If the source sounds right, the recording will, too. The difference between what is heard in the room and what is recorded through close-mic'ing is fairly negligible and not enough to warrant multiple mics or room-mic'ing, especially for simple home-recording projects.
The often-mentioned advice to turn gain lower on recordings seems to be a myth. I had my DSL15C, a very high-gain amp, set at 6, and it sounded great on the recording, which I provided above, so you can hear for yourself.
Placing the mic on the speaker cloth is definitely a good way to position the SM57. Contrary to my previous suspicion, this does not result in excessive proximity effect, but only as long as the source is dialed in right. Notice that my Bass control was set at 2. This was plenty of bass, as having Presence set to 10 gave the mids a nice warm swish on top that, interestingly enough, also had the effect of warming up the tone, probably because it sounded more like saturation than fizz.


----------



## SmokeyDopey

SmokeyDopey said:


> Kind of unrelated, but I wanted to share.
> Speaking of guitars... I've been recording for a while, back in the day, with cassette decks. But I never heard what a good recording sounded like through quality speakers. I mean hi-fi, or a nice big pair of studio speakers. Maybe 10 years ago (maybe a little less) I heard Sad But True from Metallica's black album in this small studio I was taking a course in. The 1st few classes were just going over general information, then after a few classes we went to the control room.
> The teacher put that song on, loud.
> The hair on the back of my neck stood up. I knew that song from when I was a young teen but I never heard it like this. My breathing was also a bit faster, blood pumping. Holy _shit, _those guitars. I wouldn't be surprised if my eyes got a little moist too. I was changed after that day, lol



I went back and listened to Sad But True. Can you believe this song has a _shaker _in it? I just realized this. When the main riff starts playing (around the 0:23 min mark), if you pay close attention it kinda blends with the hi hat. One of the heaviest songs has a _shaker _in it!


----------



## Seventh Son

Something about keeping Presence at 0 just didn’t seem right to me, so I went back to the source and got the sound right, but with more “normal” settings. On my DSL15C they were Bass 8, Middle 6, Treble 6, Presence 2. I tried Kevin Shirley’s two mic technique, the XY technique, but with two SM57s. I was perfectly happy with the result. It sounds just like the amp in the room. Highly recommend it. Simply point the tip of the mics in the V formation (90 degrees to each other) to the middle of the cone (not the center), about an inch from the speaker cloth. It eliminates the need to hunt for the perfect placement of one microphone.


----------



## SmokeyDopey

I tried it! With a 57 and a 421. Not bad at all! Pretty balanced sound overall.
But I was a little farther back. Not an inch away, more like 8 or 10 inches away (about 30 cm). Less bass (no need to filter out stuff), and pretty mid present. Plus a room mic several feet away (maybe 2 meters).


----------



## Seventh Son

SmokeyDopey said:


> I tried it! With a 57 and a 421. Not bad at all! Pretty balanced sound overall.
> But I was a little farther back. Not an inch away, more like 8 or 10 inches away (about 30 cm). Less bass (no need to filter out stuff), and pretty mid present. Plus a room mic several feet away (maybe 2 meters).


It is not clear from interviews with Kevin Shirley what he exactly means by "balance them [the mics] up" and "six inches from the speaker cone." I am assuming he means balance the input levels, so they're equal, and place the mics 6 inches from the grille. It is also interesting how in one interview Kevin states he places the mics "about six inches from the speaker cone," but in the other he states he likes the guitars "as upfront as possible." I suppose to him six inches from the cone is "as upfront as possible."


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Seventh Son said:


> It is not clear from interviews with Kevin Shirley what he exactly means by "balance them [the mics] up" and "six inches from the speaker cone." I am assuming he means balance the input levels, so they're equal, and place the mics 6 inches from the grille. I think it makes more sense to set gain on both mics the same on the preamp (not balance them up), where the mic pointing to the edge of the speaker will be a bit quieter than the mic pointing to the center of the speaker, but that seems to me to be what the speaker is putting out and would be closer to the real sound in the room than balancing the levels so they're exactly equal. It is also interesting how in one interview Kevin states he places the mics "about six inches from the speaker cone," but in the other he states he likes the guitars "as upfront as possible." I suppose to him six inches from the cone is "as upfront as possible."


I guess you could interpret it that way. I'd imagine that a lot of people using x-y, get matched mic's. Then, they run everything equal. When it comes to mixdown, anything's possible. Maybe 1 mic recorded louder, or when they blend, one have a better dominant sound, while the other has a better accent sound. That would then dictate how you pan them. 

If all things are equal, then pan l/r as wide as you want the stereo image to be. Some people like to pan wide 100% l/r, but, then you lose the center channel voice staging. While it has separation, it sounds thin. This is also why some people like the w/d/w staging, because the center channel is always pure unadulterated tone, then the sides are 100% wet. Then you mix to taste. The more center channel, the more balls you will have, while the sides will give spacial feeling.

In a studio, you can have the amp in a room isolated from all other sounds, while monitoring everything in the control room. 6-10" can be "in your face" under that environment. If you have a full band live room w/ drums, bass, another guitar, etc., in the same room, you will start adding artifacts from mic bleed. (read LRT's thread on that subject)

That's why live engineers, will simply stick an SM57 into the voice coil of your cab. Because there are a lot of challenges of not getting regenerative feedback, & at many different frequencies, multiplied by the amount of mic's coming through the sound system.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

SmokeyDopey said:


> I tried it! With a 57 and a 421. Not bad at all! Pretty balanced sound overall.
> But I was a little farther back. Not an inch away, more like 8 or 10 inches away (about 30 cm). Less bass (no need to filter out stuff), and pretty mid present. Plus a room mic several feet away (maybe 2 meters).


try the 421 & a nice condensor, or ribbon...

Ribbons are a trip, because the ribbon works as the transducer. Interestingly, w/ my old Beyer's, they have crystal clear highs, a distorted upper mid/low high range & a warm low/mid bass.

Try a tube mic for the distance...

You have to realize, that a lot of these old school guys purposely used mic's for their inherent distortive effects, because they add a particular voicing. Similarly, that's why we like tubes & guitar amp's & the low fidelity speakers.

That's also what you found that you liked in recording to tape, vs going direct to digital.

When using analogue devices w/ limitations, they produce natural limitations on dynamics & frequency, that, regardless of digital filtering, will not be reproduced accurately, w/ the same character.

Also, when you play around the fringes of those limits, you run into certain distortions, that can give interesting & pleasing effects.

The condensor will be sort of like adding a hi-fi mic, but, mixing it along w/ th other mic's, it will add a different flavor.

Of course, the idea is to find whatever become magic to you. If you don't try it, you can't dismiss it. Maybe you go full circle & go back to running a radio shack mic, direct into the cone & that's your magic sound capture. 

If you have the means, have at it & have fun. Why not? What do you have to lose?


----------



## Seventh Son

Dogs of Doom said:


> I guess you could interpret it that way. I'd imagine that a lot of people using x-y, get matched mic's. Then, they run everything equal. When it comes to mixdown, anything's possible. Maybe 1 mic recorded louder, or when they blend, one have a better dominant sound, while the other has a better accent sound. That would then dictate how you pan them.
> 
> If all things are equal, then pan l/r as wide as you want the stereo image to be. Some people like to pan wide 100% l/r, but, then you lose the center channel voice staging. While it has separation, it sounds thin. This is also why some people like the w/d/w staging, because the center channel is always pure unadulterated tone, then the sides are 100% wet. Then you mix to taste. The more center channel, the more balls you will have, while the sides will give spacial feeling.
> 
> In a studio, you can have the amp in a room isolated from all other sounds, while monitoring everything in the control room. 6-10" can be "in your face" under that environment. If you have a full band live room w/ drums, bass, another guitar, etc., in the same room, you will start adding artifacts from mic bleed. (read LRT's thread on that subject)
> 
> That's why live engineers, will simply stick an SM57 into the voice coil of your cab. Because there are a lot of challenges of not getting regenerative feedback, & at many different frequencies, multiplied by the amount of mic's coming through the sound system.


Please disregard what I said about matching the mics up. If you place them together at a 90 degree angle, both mics will be getting the same amount of volume, since they’re at the same spot in front of the speaker. The difference will be in brightness, but it doesn’t affect volume, from what I was able to conclude based on further experimenting.

To add one more thing, using one microphone can yield just as good results. The main advantage to the XY technique is that it eliminates the need to hunt for that sweet spot where the one mic sounds just like the amp in the room. Just point the mics to the middle of the cone, and you’re automatically getting a pretty accurate representation of the amp’s sound in the room.

Lastly, I use the technique as a mono technique and pan both tracks for each guitar hard to one side. I think this is how Shirley uses it, as well. It would be even more straightforward to send both mics to one track, but I don’t know whether that is possible in GarageBand.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

the mic's are out of phase to each other, so you are recording stereo. That's what gives you the "room" sound. It can be subtle stereo, but it's stereo no less. Mixing that down to mono won't be an accurate representation, because no matter how close to perfect match the mic's are, the settings, etc., the incident/reflective sounds coming from the different angles won't hit both heads at the same time, no matter how close the heads are to each other. When you mix out of phase signals down to mono, the phases cancel each other out.

While your amp is mono, the recording is stereo, because you are recording ambient out of phase. If you eliminate 1 mic & pan center mono), it will not sound as natural as the x-y.


----------



## Seventh Son

Dogs of Doom said:


> the mic's are out of phase to each other, so you are recording stereo. That's what gives you the "room" sound. It can be subtle stereo, but it's stereo no less. Mixing that down to mono won't be an accurate representation, because no matter how close to perfect match the mic's are, the settings, etc., the incident/reflective sounds coming from the different angles won't hit both heads at the same time, no matter how close the heads are to each other. When you mix out of phase signals down to mono, the phases cancel each other out.
> 
> While your amp is mono, the recording is stereo, because you are recording ambient out of phase. If you eliminate 1 mic & pan center mono), it will not sound as natural as the x-y.


Interesting. Kevin Shirley states that by placing the mics at 90 degree close to each other eliminates phase issues. When I pan both mics hard to one side, it has an additive effect on the sound. I inspected the waves earlier yesterday and they were almost perfectly in phase. So, you're saying there's more to it.

If that is how the technique is supposed to work, then it is probably not for me. If I'm recording a band with two guitars, I like the guitars separated left and right. I'm old school.

On a slightly different note, Glenn Fricker from Spectre Sound Studios showed how to use the Fredman technique on his Youtube channel, and he recommends running the two mics into an external mixer and then summing the signals into the line input on your recording interface. Based on his demonstrations, the manifold phase cancellations in the Fredman technique cancel out only the undesirable fizz, leaving us the good stuff.


----------



## johnfv

Sometimes the combination of signals (including some minor phase issues) can be good, even in mono. Drum mics are another example where phase issues are nearly impossible to avoid because of all the different distances - that doesn't mean it will sound bad. I'm a big fan of panning and stereo micing but there are lots of great mono recordings out there too...


----------



## Dogs of Doom

the closer you place the head, the less phase offest you have. That's why people generally settle on x-y or m/s mic techniques for stereo. It's because even though you still capture the room, it's tighter. Is it 100% in phase? no, but, if you're talking 95%+ in phase, you are close. Closer than being 50%, but, then, adding distance, adds another dimension to phase. It adds a big time delay within each mic.

(realized after posting that I didn't phrase this right, but, if you read on, you get my point)

What will happen is, let's say that you have a single mic. You have the mic, 5 ft from source & exactly center (l/r). You will have the direct sound (incident) & reflective sounds all hitting the mic, at different timings. Depending on floor/ceiling, you will have reflections from the sides hitting the mic, almost exactly at an off timed phase than the incident wave. Now, add floor & ceiling, then you have probably 3-4 different times that the exact same sound it hitting the mic capsule.

Move the mic to one side, now you add another phase, because the walls are now further off in time.

Add another mic, & you multiply all the timings by 2. This is why adding more mic's is not the quick solution to fixing a sound when something's missing.

So, when you record a source sound, using 2 mic's, not placed together, you have the potential of recording 10 different phase timings & this is w/ both mic's aimed in the same direction.

Of course, some of the timings are within milliseconds, but, add milliseconds w/ other further out times & your sound will be muddied up. The purity of the incident signal gets degraded.

Just something to consider...

Now, that said, as I alluded to earlier, that, we, in recording arts, like pushing things to the boundaries to get pleasing distortions. Some distortions are pleasing & some work in certain environments, but, not in others. That's why it pays to play w/ & learn these things, apply them, then understand why they either work, or not, for a specific purpose. Do note, that sometimes breaking the convention can give unexpected results & sometimes, while instinct says: "that won't work", it does & it does in a unique way that is pleasing to the end result.

That's 1 thing I do like about youtube. I watch videos of stuff that I will instantly dismiss, but, when I watch it, I see another tool, that ends up in my bag of tricks.


----------



## Seventh Son

Dogs of Doom said:


> the closer you place the head, the less phase offest you have. That's why people generally settle on x-y or m/s mic techniques for stereo. It's because even though you still capture the room, it's tighter. Is it 100% in phase? no, but, if you're talking 95%+ in phase, you are close. Closer than being 50%, but, then, adding distance, adds another dimension to phase. It adds a big time delay within each mic.
> 
> (realized after posting that I didn't phrase this right, but, if you read on, you get my point)
> 
> What will happen is, let's say that you have a single mic. You have the mic, 5 ft from source & exactly center (l/r). You will have the direct sound (incident) & reflective sounds all hitting the mic, at different timings. Depending on floor/ceiling, you will have reflections from the sides hitting the mic, almost exactly at an off timed phase than the incident wave. Now, add floor & ceiling, then you have probably 3-4 different times that the exact same sound it hitting the mic capsule.
> 
> Move the mic to one side, now you add another phase, because the walls are now further off in time.
> 
> Add another mic, & you multiply all the timings by 2. This is why adding more mic's is not the quick solution to fixing a sound when something's missing.
> 
> So, when you record a source sound, using 2 mic's, not placed together, you have the potential of recording 10 different phase timings & this is w/ both mic's aimed in the same direction.
> 
> Of course, some of the timings are within milliseconds, but, add milliseconds w/ other further out times & your sound will be muddied up. The purity of the incident signal gets degraded.
> 
> Just something to consider...
> 
> Now, that said, as I alluded to earlier, that, we, in recording arts, like pushing things to the boundaries to get pleasing distortions. Some distortions are pleasing & some work in certain environments, but, not in others. That's why it pays to play w/ & learn these things, apply them, then understand why they either work, or not, for a specific purpose. Do note, that sometimes breaking the convention can give unexpected results & sometimes, while instinct says: "that won't work", it does & it does in a unique way that is pleasing to the end result.
> 
> That's 1 thing I do like about youtube. I watch videos of stuff that I will instantly dismiss, but, when I watch it, I see another tool, that ends up in my bag of tricks.


Thank you for clarifying. That makes a lot of sense. So, I'm back to one microphone. The one piece of advice from Kevin Shirley that I think makes universal sense, is to point at the cone, as I find very little useful acoustic value in the center of the speaker. Where at the cone is probably up to individual taste.

Question. Since all these reflections are messing with the phase, wouldn't it then make most sense to do what a lot of guys recommend and mic up-close, as in, almost touching the grille?


----------



## SmokeyDopey

When we were recording those guitars we only had those 2 available (57 and 421), so we used that, otherwise I would've gone with a condenser/ribbon. I still liked how it came out. 

I moved them around a bit trying different distances, and I ended up putting it around that distance (8 to 10 inches approx).


----------



## SmokeyDopey

Yeah man distortion! I use it all over the place (sometimes very subtle though). From the initial recording phase (pushing the pres if they have an output level control) up to final mix-downs, and everything in between. Sometimes some things sound "better" when they're dirty. It gives it certain excitement.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Seventh Son said:


> Thank you for clarifying. That makes a lot of sense. So, I'm back to one microphone. The one piece of advice from Kevin Shirley that I think makes universal sense, is to point at the cone, as I find very little useful acoustic value in the center of the speaker. Where at the cone is probably up to individual taste.
> 
> Question. Since all these reflections are messing with the phase, wouldn't it then make most sense to do what a lot of guys recommend and mic up-close, as in, almost touching the grille?


not necessarily... If it's good enough for you, then so be it.

The thing is to master phase, not avoid it...


----------



## SmokeyDopey

I agree. You can even use phase incoherencies to your _advantage._


----------



## johnfv

The 421 is great for guitar and bass amps. Always was one of my favorites, not cheap but a great mic!


----------



## SmokeyDopey

johnfv said:


> The 421 is great for guitar and bass amps. Always was one of my favorites, not cheap but a great mic!



Mine too, and for those same applications. A lot of people use them on toms, but personally I don't like them on toms. They end up sounding a bit too "clicky" for my taste and I end up rolling off some highs. I let the OHs capture the tom's highs and the close mics take care of the lows and transients.


----------



## Seventh Son

What is most frustrating about recording and took me a while to learn to appreciate on its own merit, is the direct tone at the speaker, which never sounds exactly like the sound in the room. It has the same DNA, but at the same time isn't the same. This video offers a very good demonstration between direct sound and room sound.



Another interesting thing I've noticed recently is that the cap-meets-cone placement rule tends to be the best for close-miking. Also, it seems that the best close-miking tone is with the mic almost right on the grille. It seems to me that I get a bit more, not less, boom when I pull the mic back a half inch or so. The best way to judge direct tone is in the context of a mix. In isolation, it always has a dry, flat, and papery quality to it that can't be dialed out with amp tweaking or microphone placement. So, after all, the standard approach of cap-meets-cone and mic placed right on the grille works really well and is really all you need to get very good results.

Question for y’all. In the video, the guy states that there are no phase issues with the room mic, and he explains that he pans both the direct and the room mic hard to the same side. Is he right in that there are practically no phase issues with the room mic?


----------



## WellBurnTheSky

The further the room mic is from the source, the fewer issues you tend to have with phase cancellation in relation with a close mic, since you're getting lots of reflections coming from the room.

On the subject of phase, one quick tip: when you use two mics, filp the phase on of them (actually it's flipping the polarity, but hey, close enough) and listen to the sum of both mics (you can do that listening to the hiss produced by the amp if it's loud enough). Move that mic around until the sum of the two mics appears to be the quietest, which means close to complete phase cancellation. The flip back the phase on the mic. BAM, you're done, mics are as close to being in phase as possible.


----------



## Seventh Son

Derek S said:


> @Dogs of Doom...I'm just curious what your thoughts are on high end mic pre-amps too? Are they overrated, fairly important or even maybe guys can get by with average joe level pre's? Thanks.





Dogs of Doom said:


> one thing to keep in mind...
> 
> I was going to post a big spiel about a discussion w/ a studio owner I had, back in the '80s. I might have touched on it earlier a little bit, but, anyway, when you are talking about Maiden, you are also talking about Martin Birch, who is definitely one of the masters. He is very good at production & he knows how to get a sound that captures the essence of a band live, in the studio...
> 
> Not to say that you can't get his results, but, he is someone who's had an arsenal of top mic's at his disposal, well before his tenure w/ Maiden. Also, having a dedicated studio, that is dedicated to not only getting the best sounds - the rooms are dedicated to that - the equipment is dedicated to that & when doing a big project like Piece of Mind, the studio is off limits to anyone else & don't touch anything.
> 
> Let's just say it took them 6 months to record. That means that nobody touched that head/cab/mic for most of that 6 months, or until they knew they had everything they needed w/ that particular set-up. Now, multiply that for the other guitar, bass, drums, etc.
> 
> One of the biggest problems they'd have would be strings matching. I remember recording a few tracks one day & at the end of the day, I needed to punch in a bass tag, just to get it a little tighter. The problem though, was that my bass strings lost the brilliance that they had during the initial take. We ended up having to sample all 3 bass tracks (direct/cab close/distant) & then use a trigger to punch them in. Ended up being 2 notes, so we had to punch in (using the same process) twice.
> 
> There was another part, that I needed to play the song's outro over, because I used a pick during the band performance, but, I thought it sounded too mechanical, so I decided to punch in using fingers. I ended up using the later take. Sonically, it drives me batty, because the string brilliance loss at the climax of the song. Probably nobody else would notice, but I do...
> 
> Back, when I was talking about record contracts (a long time ago), we had the owner of the label ask us to pick a producer. We told him that if we could get:
> 
> Martin Birch
> Max Norman
> Dieter Dierks
> 
> we'd be pretty happy.
> 
> We ended up having our drummer get spooked off & the recording never happened...


I was doing some research on the _Blizzard of Ozz_ album, whose guitar tone on "Mr. Crowley" I really like, and discovered that Max Norman did that record. The isolated guitar track on "Mr. Crowley" sounds just like the guitars on Maiden's "The Trooper." I also found out that Rhandy used a Marshall double stack with volume on 10 (and all the other controls on 10, as well, apparently), with "a close mike, a Shure SM-58, down on the Marshall in the concrete room, and then an AKG 451 mike just outside of the room as it’s hitting the stairs, and then a couple more Shure SM-87s out in the room there." Interesting. In an interview about recording the _Piece of Mind_ album, Adrian Smith stated that they put the guitar amps in a big wooden room and then "put mics everywhere." I wonder how they do all this with multiple microphones and avoid the phase issues that everyone cautions us about.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Max is a genius. Funny though, how many people in the forums downtalk him.

It's like I said, it's not about avoiding phase, it's about mastering it. The only way to master it, is to also fail at it. Max, when recording the Blizzard of Ozz, was doing a somewhat interesting thing of combining the studio intricacies of Led Zeppelin studio techniques, while keeping the vibe of the band 100% live.

Some of the tracks, have up to 21 (IIRC) guitar tracks. You can not simply throw a mic on the speaker grill & mix 21 guitars & expect to have them fit in their own texture pocket, as an ensemble of guitars. Also, then try & mix them in w/ keyboards, bass, drums & vocals. Not that all tracks had all them guitars at all times, but, now, take note, that, when there's 1 single guitar track vs 21, the guitars do not take over the stage of the whole score. Then note, that, when the band played live, it was definitely different, but not so much as where it sounded like Randy struggled to pull it off live.

Some of the tracks, have a more distant sound, while others have an in your face sound. 

The SM87 are condensor mic's. More of a hi-fi mic, than the SM58. The SM58, Shure claims is identical to the SM57, but, the head, rejects rear sound more than the head (or lack thereof) of the SM57. I think they sound different as well, but, I suppose if you took off the head basket (of the 58), that it would sound more similar.

During the late '70s, all the small studios, were into snuffing out all acoustics. If you listen to local band demos from the day, you'll hear, that they used mufflers on the drums, noise gated everything tight & used compressor/limiters to keep volumes steady. In the '80s, they started overdoing reverb on everything.

While it brought back some of the lost sound of dampening/gating everything to death, it created it's own set of issues. Everything w/ reverse gated reverb sounds dated & cheap, by today's standards.

The top guys (Norman, Birch, etc.) didn't follow trend, unless they were forced to, which wasn't very often, since they could pick & choose their projects.

W/o exact descriptions of how they did it, I'd assume that they didn't just put mic's up willy-nilly, as the description may sound. They probably had an understanding that the musicians didn't have &/or know better...

This is a big part of what is missing in the recording industry. Before, you had:

songwriters
musicians
engineers
producers
masterers

etc.

Now, you get young kids, who think they can do everything, just because they can buy a mic & hook into ProTools.

I was just talking about this w/ my brother the other day.


----------



## Seventh Son

Dogs of Doom said:


> Max is a genius. Funny though, how many people in the forums downtalk him.
> 
> It's like I said, it's not about avoiding phase, it's about mastering it. The only way to master it, is to also fail at it. Max, when recording the Blizzard of Ozz, was doing a somewhat interesting thing of combining the studio intricacies of Led Zeppelin studio techniques, while keeping the vibe of the band 100% live.
> 
> Some of the tracks, have up to 21 (IIRC) guitar tracks. You can not simply throw a mic on the speaker grill & mix 21 guitars & expect to have them fit in their own texture pocket, as an ensemble of guitars. Also, then try & mix them in w/ keyboards, bass, drums & vocals. Not that all tracks had all them guitars at all times, but, now, take note, that, when there's 1 single guitar track vs 21, the guitars do not take over the stage of the whole score. Then note, that, when the band played live, it was definitely different, but not so much as where it sounded like Randy struggled to pull it off live.
> 
> Some of the tracks, have a more distant sound, while others have an in your face sound.
> 
> The SM87 are condensor mic's. More of a hi-fi mic, than the SM58. The SM58, Shure claims is identical to the SM57, but, the head, rejects rear sound more than the head (or lack thereof) of the SM57. I think they sound different as well, but, I suppose if you took off the head basket (of the 58), that it would sound more similar.
> 
> During the late '70s, all the small studios, were into snuffing out all acoustics. If you listen to local band demos from the day, you'll hear, that they used mufflers on the drums, noise gated everything tight & used compressor/limiters to keep volumes steady. In the '80s, they started overdoing reverb on everything.
> 
> While it brought back some of the lost sound of dampening/gating everything to death, it created it's own set of issues. Everything w/ reverse gated reverb sounds dated & cheap, by today's standards.
> 
> The top guys (Norman, Birch, etc.) didn't follow trend, unless they were forced to, which wasn't very often, since they could pick & choose their projects.
> 
> W/o exact descriptions of how they did it, I'd assume that they didn't just put mic's up willy-nilly, as the description may sound. They probably had an understanding that the musicians didn't have &/or know better...
> 
> This is a big part of what is missing in the recording industry. Before, you had:
> 
> songwriters
> musicians
> engineers
> producers
> masterers
> 
> etc.
> 
> Now, you get young kids, who think they can do everything, just because they can buy a mic & hook into ProTools.
> 
> I was just talking about this w/ my brother the other day.


I read this very detailed interview with Max Norman, in which he details how many tracks Rhandy laid down at times. It's very interesting.
http://jasobrecht.com/randy-rhoads-max-norman-interview/

When I was comparing the isolated tracks, I couldn't believe just how similar the tone on "Mr. Crowley" sounded to the Piece of Mind tone. No wonder I always dug the Blizzard of Ozz tone. It's one of those classic tones.

Now, for the ultimate irony, check this out. I recorded a simple recording with my iPhone's built in speaker and got the guitar to sound just like it should.

As soon as I put an SM57 on the amp, I loose all the mids and presence and get nothing like what the amps sounds like in the room. I'll have to try room miking next to do what Norman and Birch did. Need to get a decent, more sensitive mic first. I know, based on the interview above, that Norman used an SM58 on the amp plus two small condensers in the room. I also know that Birch used wooden rooms for the amps and, according to Adrian Smith, "put mics everywhere." Based on some footage from the _No Prayer for the Dying_ recording sessions in Steve Harris's house, it appears that Birch also close-miked the amps, in addition to room-miking, but I can't infer form that whether he also close-miked on _Piece of Mind,_ in addition to "put[ting] mics everywhere."


----------



## Dogs of Doom

as far as working w/ Max, @Barfly might have some insight as to how they worked together... ...

That, interview is great, but, unfortunately not very detailed, as far as technique, etc. I wish that they never would have monkeyed around w/ those original recordings.

One thing that Max touches on there, in that interview, is that sometimes the raw, WTF?, kind of stuff is what makes the best take.

I remember listening, in the early days to Revelation (Mother Earth), & during the bridge, the vocals would go:

I had a vision, l saw the world burn
And the seas had turned red
The sun had fallen, the final curtain
In the land of the dead
Mother, please show the children
Before it's too late
To fight each other, there's no one winning
We must fight all the hate

& it was definitely 2 takes, in a question/response format, so, the even numbered lines were rough takes, that sounded really bad, from a technical aspect, but, they made it sound emotionally & impactfully distressing.

For some reason, Sharon (& Ozzy) decided to really rape those recordings, even at one point removing the bass/drums & adding new performance drums/bass to spite the original bandmates...


----------



## Barfly

1st.. Max was probably more rock star than rock stars, lol. Definitely more than any of us in the band. What a cool and seriously funny Mother F**k*r. Bad ass but in a down to earth, cool way. No ego at all. Smoking wife.. talented.. a legend.. smoking wife.. did I mention that already? LoL goodness.

He listened to our 4 track pre demo demos.. then suggested additions and changes to the material at rehearsals we did to prep for the actual capturing of the demos.

We went into a studio (Matrix?) and loaded our gear all into one room. I had never seen it before but max ran stuff off of a computer. I'm trying to remember exactly as it was like in 1988 or thereabouts.

We were extremely and I mean extremely tight. Tighter than a clam's ass or a Nun's.. um, anyway..

All the amps were in a separate room and we initially played in the same room as the instruments.

We went into each song so he could record backing tracks for the drums. All songs were one take. He discussed his approach to the drums being captured as I thought about the four basic food groups... drinks, bars, porn and my wife.. I only remember one thing he said here.. LMAO. Then he captured the drums..

After the drums were captured we then recorded the various instruments which of course, *he* first set the amps up and then further molded the sound via the various pieces of gear in the studio... while cracking jokes about our diminutive drummer who smashed the cans like they insulted his mother.. 

At one point he threw a pen under the console and asked sweetly in his english accent: "Dave, would you please walk over and get that?" as we all fell out.

I did all of the songs in one take... I could actually play back then. I prided myself on my soloing ability but producer Jack Ponti once told me I was the best rhythm guitarist he'd ever worked with???? LMAO. I was and am extremely proud of that unexpected compliment. Now I suck rocks, but whose fault is that?

PS: I had once asked Max "who is the best lead guitarist you ever worked with?" expecting him to say Randy Rhodes.. he replied " George Lynch. He is incredible!"

Anyway.. everyone recorded their tracks and then he mixed the demos... we showcased for RCA (whom, by the way, paid for the demos.. they were already interested and footed the bill.) And scored a record deal. It was strange.. We had to showcase for them twice in a row as the studio couldn't accommodate all the RCA people who showed up for the showcase.

Working with Max was a real pleasure, thrill and honor. He's just, at least from my viewpoint, a real sweet man. A smart man. One bad mother. If I remember right, the demos cost 30k. More or less.

Now.. back to my drink, bitches.

PS: For dogs, I skimmed the article. Yes! We were initially all in the same room.. It wasn't my first rodeo so I remember thinking.. "this is odd!" I remember all of us playing again from the control room afterwards individually. No double tracking. Nick and I would "orchestrate" our parts to compliment the others playing. Nick was a tough mother on rhythm.

I pretty much don't remember more than single guitar tracks. No doubling. But here is the thing.. we were doing elevated "demos." It could have unfolded differently with the proper record being recorded. When we were going to do our record Max Norman was already committed to the 1st Lynch Mob record. RCA gave us a short list of replacements so we never got to do the record with Max.

That's probably why I wake up now at 4:30am to go to my day job. LMAO.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

do you remember how the guitars were recorded?

(edit) should add, I'm still jealous... ...


----------



## Barfly

Dogs of Doom said:


> do you remember how the guitars were recorded?
> (edit) should add, I'm still jealous... ...



All I remember is that he put them in a operate room (amps) and I think my marshall JCM 800 was like at 3 or 3 and a half (vol) and I usually played live at 2 1/2 maximum. Only one mic. I never paid much attention to the technical aspects but I think the other guitarist (Nick Bowcott) did. I guess I should read the article to get a better idea of what you need.. lol. But I am kinda hammered.

PM me a specific question or questions and I will see if Nick answers me or even remembers.. LOL. They were actually pals and he was much more interested in the technical aspects.

I can ask Max but I doubt he'd remember how he recorded us.. LoL. We were nobodies. Can't hurt..

Cheers, Dogs!


----------



## Dogs of Doom

well, that was back in the days where musicians were musicians (performers) & studios were studios (engineers/recorders), so I totally understand.

People growing up today would never understand that... ...

"You mean you actually paid someone to record you?" ...


----------



## johnfv

Cool discussion about Max Norman, he also recorded the first Dangerous Toys album.


----------



## johnfv

This is a pretty interesting video from Rick Beato about the evils of quantizing. Even if you are familiar with how all this stuff work, I think it's worth watching. Later, he goes through some examples of the tempo variations in well known songs. Of course some of those variations are from the razor blade edits that people *used* to do


----------



## Seventh Son

I recently researched Max Norman a bit. He's produced some killer albums.

@johnfv Great video. Rick Beato is absolutely right. It would have to suck to play your parts as a band and then have it chopped up and quantized by the producer. I could never stand listening to my music knowing that parts of the song were copied and pasted and quantized, because I know that that is not how real music sounds.


----------



## Seventh Son

I just thought I'd share some recent progress I have made in my home recording journey.

I have been able to rectify the issues I was having with excessive fizz on my recordings, no matter what I tried. It appears that the fizz was being caused by using my amp in triode mode, which sounded just fine in the room, but apparently the power tubes weren't pushing the speaker enough to move sufficient air to get the mic diaphragm moving. Once I went to pentode mode, I was able to mic the amp with an SM57 halfway between the center and edge of the speaker and almost touching the grille cloth. Even with my amp's volume just above 2, I got great results that sound just like the amp in the room.

Previously, I also had some issues with excessive proximity effect from placing an SM57 close to the grille cloth. I found out that the problem wasn't the miking technique, but my untreated monitoring room, which caused bass build-up. Armed with that knowledge, I ran a series of experiments. In the end, I found that the best direct tone with an SM57 is obtained by placing it halfway between the center and edge of the speaker and right on the grille. With that placement, the recordings sounded as close as possible to what I'm hearing in the room. The SM57 really needs the proximity effect to fill in the lower mids in power chords and to have enough girth in the tone. When I tried placing the mic about 4 inches away, I got thin, piercing tones. Even though I read in my research about many producers who move dynamic mics like the SM57 more than 1 foot away from the amp, I would not recommend it based on my findings, at least not with an SM57. The SM57 needs to be upclose to yield best results.

The effect that switching from triode from pentode had, was huge. The tricky part was that my ears didn't hear the difference between the two, but it seems that getting the microphone's diaphragm moving was the missing ingredient.

With these issues sorted out, I can now dial in any tone I like and be confident that when I hit record, the results will be pleasing. Even when I shared my recent recording with my friends, they commented on how warm and natural the guitars sounded.


----------



## Seventh Son

Even though I've made a lot of progress in recording guitars at home, the professional guitar tones that I am chasing remain elusive, so I was wondering if you guys have any advice you could give. The last and remaining issue I have is that the tracks I record are lacking midrange. Compared to the sound in the room, the recorded tones sound almost like something is out of phase. I also know that microphone placement isn't the problem. Whether I place an SM57 on the grille or 6 feet away at ear level where I am standing, the SM57 is still hearing way more fizz and mud than my ears. With mids just on 2 and volume on 2, the mids that my ears hear in the room are already brutally thick and the bass is extremely tight, but that doesn't come across on the recordings. Interestingly, when I put my iPhone about 6 feet away and record, the iPhone's built-in microphone hears mostly the round, thick midrange that sounds just like what I am trying to capture. Anyone have any clue what is going on? By the way, I can rule out issues with the SM57, as I have two SM57, both purchased through large, reputable stores, and both microphones sound roughly the same. Also, I am using a decent Presonus audio interface and a MacBook Pro with Garageband.


----------



## SmokeyDopey

So it sounds like the room itself can "complete" the sound. By adding just a little bit to the mix (but not too obvious) it can help make a more full sound. 

When you say out of phase-- could it be possible that there is actually something out of phase? 
You're using 2 SM57s, and I assume you've tried flipping the polarity on one of them to check? Sometimes it can be something like an XLR cable that wasn't wired properly making it out of phase with another mic.


----------



## _ripper_

Seventh Son said:


> Even though I've made a lot of progress in recording guitars at home, the professional guitar tones that I am chasing remain elusive, so I was wondering if you guys have any advice you could give. The last and remaining issue I have is that the tracks I record are lacking midrange. Compared to the sound in the room, the recorded tones sound almost like something is out of phase. I also know that microphone placement isn't the problem. Whether I place an SM57 on the grille or 6 feet away at ear level where I am standing, the SM57 is still hearing way more fizz and mud than my ears. With mids just on 2 and volume on 2, the mids that my ears hear in the room are already brutally thick and the bass is extremely tight, but that doesn't come across on the recordings. Interestingly, when I put my iPhone about 6 feet away and record, the iPhone's built-in microphone hears mostly the round, thick midrange that sounds just like what I am trying to capture. Anyone have any clue what is going on? By the way, I can rule out issues with the SM57, as I have two SM57, both purchased through large, reputable stores, and both microphones sound roughly the same. Also, I am using a decent Presonus audio interface and a MacBook Pro with Garageband.



How are you EQing your guitar tracks? After you hi pass and low pass, maybe a small but broad boost over the mids will give the tone the body you want. 

Also, please don't take this the wrong way but you are going to have a really hard time nailing Maiden's (or any on pro band's - particularly from that era) studio guitar sound at home. There's a big discrepancy, not only in amp/cab and room, but also in outboard gear, mic pres, the mixing desk, and of course engineering experience/skills, it all adds up.


----------



## Seventh Son

SmokeyDopey said:


> So it sounds like the room itself can "complete" the sound. By adding just a little bit to the mix (but not too obvious) it can help make a more full sound.
> 
> When you say out of phase-- could it be possible that there is actually something out of phase?
> You're using 2 SM57s, and I assume you've tried flipping the polarity on one of them to check? Sometimes it can be something like an XLR cable that wasn't wired properly making it out of phase with another mic.


I used just one SM57. Moving the mic from the center of the speaker to the edge produces predictable changes, all according to the textbook. Moving the mic to where I am standing, where it sounds good, also results in a thin tone. It is almost as if placement makes no difference to the SM57. But, as I said, if I point my iPhone at the amp from where I am standing, the iPhone hears the amp much more like I do. It's really weird, and frustrating.


----------



## Seventh Son

_ripper_ said:


> How are you EQing your guitar tracks?


I am not applying any EQ to the guitar tracks. My primary goal is to get tracks that sound acceptable without any processing.


----------



## _ripper_

Seventh Son said:


> I am not applying any EQ to the guitar tracks. My primary goal is to get tracks that sound acceptable without any processing.



Yeah, but, don't they sound acceptable right now? We're talking about the last bit here that you're trying to nail, if I understood correctly.

Having said that, EQ is an extremely powerful sound shaping tool. Everyone uses it when mixing and those studio guitar sounds have not only their track EQ, but also quite possibly mix buss EQ and mastering EQ applied to them. If you're looking to nail them, it makes sense to try the same.

EDIT: Contatulations for not being lazy and trying to get it as good as possible at the source. Nowadays with plug-ins like Curve EQ you can clone the frequency curve of any source material and basically clone any guitar sound you want and it's easy to take shortcuts. We were doing that with PODs at the Line 6 forum over 10 years ago, way before Kempers and the like existed. Anyway, it's good that your meticulous about getting a solid tone at the source.


----------



## Seventh Son

_ripper_ said:


> How are you EQing your guitar tracks? After you hi pass and low pass, maybe a small but broad boost over the mids will give the tone the body you want.
> 
> Also, please don't take this the wrong way but you are going to have a really hard time nailing Maiden's (or any on pro band's - particularly from that era) studio guitar sound at home. There's a big discrepancy, not only in amp/cab and room, but also in outboard gear, mic pres, the mixing desk, and of course engineering experience/skills, it all adds up.


No worries, I am not getting offended the least. I am really just trying to solve this mystery that recording guitars on my own has always posed. I remember my first recording experience, back in the last '90s when I was still a teen. Me and the other guitarist in the band both had Marshall half-stacks and nice guitars, and whenever we hit the Record button, it was always the same thing—thin, fizzy, tone that no amount of knob tweaking on the amp or microphone repositioning could fix to yield desirable results.

Right now, I can get decent tones from close-miking, but only by settling for the least evil. Every track I record with my DSL15C (or DSL20CR) with an SM57 up front has that thin, phasey thing going on, and the best I can currently do, is choose the best of the terrible sounding bunch. None of the tracks, however, comes close to what I am hearing in the room, which sounds pretty amazing, so it can't possibly be an issue with the source. The DSL15C and DSL20CR are good amps for heavy rock. And, as I've said, I did a lot of recording in my teens with my closed-back 6100 half-stack at various volumes, mic placements, etc., and that, too, didn't seem to do the trick.

According to many pros, I _should_ be able to get good tracks without almost any post-processing, with the gear that I have, but I am not. I am just wondering what it is that I am missing here.


----------



## _ripper_

Seventh Son said:


> No worries, I am not getting offended the least. I am really just trying to solve this mystery that recording guitars on my own has always posed. I remember my first recording experience, back in the last '90s when I was still a teen. Me and the other guitarist in the band both had Marshall half-stacks and nice guitars, and whenever we hit the Record button, it was always the same thing—thin, fizzy, tone that no amount of knob tweaking on the amp or microphone repositioning could fix to yield desirable results.
> 
> Right now, I can get decent tones from close-miking, but only by settling for the least evil. Every track I record with my DSL15C (or DSL20CR) with an SM57 up front has that thin, phasey thing going on, and the best I can currently do, is choose the best of the terrible sounding bunch. None of the tracks, however, comes close to what I am hearing in the room, which sounds pretty amazing, so it can't possibly be an issue with the source. The DSL15C and DSL20CR are good amps for heavy rock. And, as I've said, I did a lot of recording in my teens with my closed-back 6100 half-stack at various volumes, mic placements, etc., and that, too, didn't seem to do the trick.
> 
> According to many pros, I _should_ be able to get good tracks without almost any post-processing, with the gear that I have, but I am not. I am just wondering what it is that I am missing here.



That's why I mentioned EQ. For example, if your track sounds thin, use a low pass EQ, it will kill the fizz but also make it sound dull. Then add some bite back in by boosting the upper mids. 

What we hear on records are not raw miced guitar tracks, which probably sound closer to what you are recording that you realize.


----------



## Seventh Son

_ripper_ said:


> That's why I mentioned EQ. For example, if your track sounds thin, use a low pass EQ, it will kill the fizz but also make it sound dull. Then add some bite back in by boosting the upper mids.
> 
> What we hear on records are not raw miced guitar tracks, which probably sound closer to what you are recording that you realize.


I tried that a while ago. I did what everyone else recommends, namely, cut everything above 10k, but that had no audible effect. In fact, I didn't hear any difference until I got down to about 3.5k, which is ridiculously aggressive and probably another sign that something is wrong with the track to begin with.


----------



## _ripper_

Seventh Son said:


> I tried that a while ago. I did what everyone else recommends, namely, cut everything above 10k, but that had no audible effect. In fact, I didn't hear any difference until I got down to about 3.5k, which is ridiculously aggressive and probably another sign that something is wrong with the track to begin with.



Yeah that doesn't sound right. Why don't you post some tracks so we can hear what's going on?


----------



## SmokeyDopey

Seventh Son said:


> I used just one SM57. Moving the mic from the center of the speaker to the edge produces predictable changes, all according to the textbook. Moving the mic to where I am standing, where it sounds good, also results in a thin tone. It is almost as if placement makes no difference to the SM57. But, as I said, if I point my iPhone at the amp from where I am standing, the iPhone hears the amp much more like I do. It's really weird, and frustrating.



Have you tried using a room mic together with the 57? And if you like the sound of the iPhone, why not use it?
Record normally with you interface and record with your phone at the same time, then upload the phone file to your DAW, align it with the 57 track and see how that sounds.
Not as a permanent fix, but to see if it gets closer to what your aiming for.


----------



## WellBurnTheSky

Fizzy recorded tones usually mean too much gain. As a rule, distorted guitar always sounds gainier when close-miked that the way if feels in the room.
So, if it sounds fizzy when close-miked, back off the gain. Plus it all adds up when double/triple/quad-tracking. Getting Maiden-like tones recorded means using 800-like levels of gain, no more.
So, as a rule, get gain to where if feels comfortable, then back it off a tad.
And yeah, maybe add a room mic (or a ribbon mic), usually a large diaphragm condenser, but careful about the phase. More mics equals more potential phase issues.

Hope that helps !


----------



## Seventh Son

WellBurnTheSky said:


> Fizzy recorded tones usually mean too much gain. As a rule, distorted guitar always sounds gainier when close-miked that the way if feels in the room.
> So, if it sounds fizzy when close-miked, back off the gain. Plus it all adds up when double/triple/quad-tracking. Getting Maiden-like tones recorded means using 800-like levels of gain, no more.
> So, as a rule, get gain to where if feels comfortable, then back it off a tad.
> And yeah, maybe add a room mic (or a ribbon mic), usually a large diaphragm condenser, but careful about the phase. More mics equals more potential phase issues.
> 
> Hope that helps !


Thank you. I normally set my gain at 2 for the ‘80s type of tones and to avoid having too much gain on recordings.

I went back to the live room and spent some considerable time working on the amp settings along with reference tracks, until it sounded close enough. Interestingly, I ended up dialing out some mids and adding in some treble, presence, and bass. I also tried the second preamp on my interface, which has a bit more gain than the first and appears to sound better. With an SM57 right on cap edge, I got some promising results, but will have to give it a few days to digest it before I declare victory. The resulting tracks sound pretty good in the mix. A little thin, but it's a 1x12", so that is understandable. Checking the results over headphones, there's still a considerable difference in the midrange and overall amount of girth, but that could possibly be not only due to the 1x12" configuration, but also because I am recording with volume on 2. I suppose if I could push the amp and the speaker real hard, with MV past 6, I could achieve a further improvement.


----------



## Seventh Son

If all you had was an SM57, how would you place it on the amp?


----------



## johnfv

Seventh Son said:


> If all you had was an SM57, how would you place it on the amp?


Close up, slightly off center (adjust to taste). It won't sound the same as the amp "in the room" but with a single 57 you should be able to get very usable tracks. How it sounds *in the mix* is what is important.


----------



## _ripper_

Seventh Son said:


> If all you had was an SM57, how would you place it on the amp?



My usual starting point is right up against the grill cloth, right at the point where the cone and dust cap intersect. Usually I'll end up moving it a bit towards the edge of the speaker. TBH, no matter what position you end up using it'll be a trade-off. That's where EQ can be real useful: to compensate. Personally, I try to get the mids sounding right with the mic position, since that's the main part of the guitar's tone, and I'm prepared to sort out the highs, low-mids and lows with a bit of EQ if need be.

EDIT: I did a quick recording with an SM57 and an SM7b positioned at the starting point I mentioned above, as a reference of sorts. Three different sounds in the clip: 1) Jet City JCA22H with the 57, 2) DSL100H with the 57, and 3) DSL100H with the SM7b. Its interesting to listen to like this, the Jet City is a EL84 amp and you can hear how the bass is lacking compared to the big bottle DSL100H. Both amps were turned up LOUD for this test. Also, its interesting how the SM57 and SM7b differ, even though they both have the same capsule and are recording the exact same amp and cab.


EDIT #2: Here's how the dry tracks ended up sounding in the mix and with the processing. I used the SM7b tracks for this.


----------



## Seventh Son

johnfv said:


> Close up, slightly off center (adjust to taste). It won't sound the same as the amp "in the room" but with a single 57 you should be able to get very usable tracks. How it sounds *in the mix* is what is important.


This is a good and useful point to remind myself of to preserve my sanity, as I am very critical of recorded guitar tones.


----------



## BftGibson

been really looking at recording at home..have a great studio guy & the results are worth it. but sometimes life dictates other circumstances. today did a 24 second intro to a new song on Audacity(only thing i know). Did chords & then layered over..put vox in. Did all the leveling & panning. Now,,ugg..dragging drums up from bandroom..never did it before......was surprised how the 24 seconds came out..very clear. Any drum tips ? have no prob mic'ing 1 drum at a time to achieve a good result(i suck but can keep time lol)


----------



## Seventh Son

_ripper_ said:


> My usual starting point is right up against the grill cloth, right at the point where the cone and dust cap intersect. Usually I'll end up moving it a bit towards the edge of the speaker. TBH, no matter what position you end up using it'll be a trade-off. That's where EQ can be real useful: to compensate. Personally, I try to get the mids sounding right with the mic position, since that's the main part of the guitar's tone, and I'm prepared to sort out the highs, low-mids and lows with a bit of EQ if need be.
> 
> EDIT: I did a quick recording with an SM57 and an SM7b positioned at the starting point I mentioned above, as a reference of sorts. Three different sounds in the clip: 1) Jet City JCA22H with the 57, 2) DSL100H with the 57, and 3) DSL100H with the SM7b. Its interesting to listen to like this, the Jet City is a EL84 amp and you can hear how the bass is lacking compared to the big bottle DSL100H. Both amps were turned up LOUD for this test. Also, its interesting how the SM57 and SM7b differ, even though they both have the same capsule and are recording the exact same amp and cab.
> 
> 
> EDIT #2: Here's how the dry tracks ended up sounding in the mix and with the processing. I used the SM7b tracks for this.



Thank you. This sounds very interesting. I've kind of realized that mic placement in close-miking is not the cure for dry, papery, or fizzy tone that I have so often encountered when close-miking. That tone that I find weird, is just what close-miked amps apparently sound like, and there's no magical mic placement in close-miking that will suddenly result in a natural sound. These days, I've pretty much resigned myself to just sticking it somewhere on the grille, usually at cap edge, as you said, and then hitting Record.

I was wondering, do you start with getting the mids right, and then EQ the amp based on what the mic is hearing, or do you EQ the amp for the best room sound and then record and post-process with post-EQ? And, do you think that high volume is absolutely necessary for good results? The reason that I ask is, I've heard many volume tests and have even done one on my own, and interestingly, I didn't hear any significant or worthwhile improvement between having MV on 2 versus, say, 5 in recording situations. In my own experiment with the DSL15C, the tone didn't start to show any significant improvement until the MV was on 7 at least.


----------



## _ripper_

Seventh Son said:


> Thank you. This sounds very interesting. I've kind of realized that mic placement in close-miking is not the cure for dry, papery, or fizzy tone that I have so often encountered when close-miking. That tone that I find weird, is just what close-miked amps apparently sound like, and there's no magical mic placement in close-miking that will suddenly result in a natural sound. These days, I've pretty much resigned myself to just sticking it somewhere on the grille, usually at cap edge, as you said, and then hitting Record.
> 
> I was wondering, do you start with getting the mids right, and then EQ the amp based on what the mic is hearing, or do you EQ the amp for the best room sound and then record and post-process with post-EQ? And, do you think that high volume is absolutely necessary for good results? The reason that I ask is, I've heard many volume tests and have even done one on my own, and interestingly, I didn't hear any significant or worthwhile improvement between having MV on 2 versus, say, 5 in recording situations. In my own experiment with the DSL15C, the tone didn't start to show any significant improvement until the MV was on 7 at least.



First of all, I start with a sound I like in the room. Unfortunately, because my music room isn't treated, sometimes what I hear in the room isn't accurate, particularly with regard to the low end. That's where I might tweak the amp dials relative to what the mic is picking up. For example, if I'm hearing low end thunder in the room and the mic isnt picking it up, then there's a good chance the room is exaggerating the lows. Then I'll boost the bass and/or resonance on the amp. So basically, it's a mix of both the approaches you mentioned, such is the case when you're going it alone at home.

With regard to volume, I try to get the 100H a bit past '3' on the volume knob. Why '3'? Because I feel that at that point the sound starts to fill out and the speakers are moving. The fact that Gary Holt had the master of the 100H on '3' on his live rig in Slayer also had something to do with it, haha. Volume just gets things moving better, IMO. It's really loud at 3.

I remember your MV test, and indeed the tone changed drastically for the better when it was on '7'. I think that at that point the power tubes were getting really involved in the tone. I've seen something similar when playing with the crunch channel on the 100H with an attenuator and the volume on '10'. Magic started to happen. BTW, have you considered a load box like the Torpedo Captor? It seems like it might be a solution for you, you can run the amp as loud as you like without bothering anyone and use professional IRs for recording, not having to worry about miking.


----------



## _ripper_

BftGibson said:


> been really looking at recording at home..have a great studio guy & the results are worth it. but sometimes life dictates other circumstances. today did a 24 second intro to a new song on Audacity(only thing i know). Did chords & then layered over..put vox in. Did all the leveling & panning. Now,,ugg..dragging drums up from bandroom..never did it before......was surprised how the 24 seconds came out..very clear. Any drum tips ? have no prob mic'ing 1 drum at a time to achieve a good result(i suck but can keep time lol)



Personally, I'd get a decent set of drum samples and program the drums with MIDI in the recording software.


----------



## WellBurnTheSky

johnfv said:


> Close up, slightly off center (adjust to taste). It won't sound the same as the amp "in the room" but with a single 57 you should be able to get very usable tracks. How it sounds *in the mix* is what is important.


This pretty much. Though I like to have the mic 1" or 2 away from the grill, and sometimes angle it a bit.
But truth is, you need to experiment with mic placement and find what works for you. Sometimes a 57 dead center is what you need to get enough cut.
Also, if you're using a 2x12 or a 4x12, take the time to compare how each speaker sounds, they always sound slightly (or even not slightly at all) different, and one will record better than the other(s).

A good way to do this is to use a looper to record a riff, loop it and move the mic around, recording everything. Once you find a mic placement that works for you, write it down, or even better mark it on the cab with some electrical tape.

And yeah, what sounds good in isolation doesn't always work in the mix. Dry and papery might be exactly what you need to cut through. Check one of the many videos on Youtube with isolated guitar parts from famous albums, you might be pretty surprised at how they sound on their own.
A few examples (they all sound pretty dry and raspy, with surprisingly little low end):

Super dry, borderline fizzy, textbook 800-era tones. Add the bass and drums, and it all makes sense.


That rhythm guitar is super bright and nasty in isolation (the isolated guitar parts on Killer Queen are even weirder sounding...but sound AMAZING in the context of the whole mix)


Again, super dry, not a lot of low end. And it's already several parts piled up, which obviously sounds bigger. And I'd guess some kind of HF shelving was added on the way in, but there's still lots of top end.
And Kirk's tone on the lead parts is downright NASTY (talk about sounding fuzzy) at the 4:15 mark...it all disappears in the mix though. It's already less prominent once the harmony guitar comes in. Same at the 5:40 mark (main solo), super ugly fuzzy agressive tone by itself...just awesome in the mix 

Bright and papery is good, and the Marshall/57 combo provides that in spades !


----------



## _ripper_

WellBurnTheSky said:


> This pretty much. Though I like to have the mic 1" or 2 away from the grill, and sometimes angle it a bit.
> But truth is, you need to experiment with mic placement and find what works for you. Sometimes a 57 dead center is what you need to get enough cut.
> Also, if you're using a 2x12 or a 4x12, take the time to compare how each speaker sounds, they always sound slightly (or even not slightly at all) different, and one will record better than the other(s).
> 
> A good way to do this is to use a looper to record a riff, loop it and move the mic around, recording everything. Once you find a mic placement that works for you, write it down, or even better mark it on the cab with some electrical tape.
> 
> And yeah, what sounds good in isolation doesn't always work in the mix. Dry and papery might be exactly what you need to cut through. Check one of the many videos on Youtube with isolated guitar parts from famous albums, you might be pretty surprised at how they sound on their own.
> A few examples (they all sound pretty dry and raspy, with surprisingly little low end):
> 
> Super dry, borderline fizzy, textbook 800-era tones. Add the bass and drums, and it all makes sense.
> 
> 
> That rhythm guitar is super bright and nasty in isolation (the isolated guitar parts on Killer Queen are even weirder sounding...but sound AMAZING in the context of the whole mix)
> 
> 
> Again, super dry, not a lot of low end. And it's already several parts piled up, which obviously sounds bigger. And I'd guess some kind of HF shelving was added on the way in, but there's still lots of top end.
> And Kirk's tone on the lead parts is downright NASTY (talk about sounding fuzzy) at the 4:15 mark...it all disappears in the mix though. It's already less prominent once the harmony guitar comes in. Same at the 5:40 mark (main solo), super ugly fuzzy agressive tone by itself...just awesome in the mix
> 
> Bright and papery is good, and the Marshall/57 combo provides that in spades !




I'd also add that those guitar parts aren't dry mic'ed tracks, but have all the mix and mastering post processing on them. So, you can imagine what they would sound like if they were the bone dry mic'ed tracks. That's probably why there's so little low end, its been hi passed to make room for the bass in the mix.


----------



## BftGibson

_ripper_ said:


> Personally, I'd get a decent set of drum samples and program the drums with MIDI in the recording software.


just did this..tired of samples


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Try a mic, as you are & then a mic (same position) facing the rear wall from the cab. Then, flip the phase of the rear facing mic & blend to liking...

I have no idea what your room actually looks like, so take that as you may....

here's a simple sample. I am recording a full stereo music track using X/Y in front of my computer monitors. I am also using a mic pointed straight back toward the rear wall.

There's 3- 55 sec. snippets per sample:

1. X/Y config
2. X/Y + rear
3. X/Y + rear (phase flipped)



Same thing, but I normalized all tracks & L/R balanced:



It's harder to hear the differences in the balanced set, but, you can clearly hear the fullness of the room w/ the phase flipped.

I did this using a Zoom H2n, using the "spatial" mode, which does the X/Y w/ a rear facing mic. There's a break between the 3 sections, feel free to skip through them to hear instant differences.

This should work the same way w/ your cabinet, to fill the sound w/ the room.

You may, or may not want this in a full band mix, as those frequencies will compete w/ bass guitar, keyboards, etc. You can do it , where, when the guitar is solo, so the guitar sounds fatter by it's self...


----------



## BftGibson

delete]


----------



## Seventh Son

WellBurnTheSky said:


> This pretty much. Though I like to have the mic 1" or 2 away from the grill, and sometimes angle it a bit.
> But truth is, you need to experiment with mic placement and find what works for you. Sometimes a 57 dead center is what you need to get enough cut.
> Also, if you're using a 2x12 or a 4x12, take the time to compare how each speaker sounds, they always sound slightly (or even not slightly at all) different, and one will record better than the other(s).
> 
> A good way to do this is to use a looper to record a riff, loop it and move the mic around, recording everything. Once you find a mic placement that works for you, write it down, or even better mark it on the cab with some electrical tape.
> 
> And yeah, what sounds good in isolation doesn't always work in the mix. Dry and papery might be exactly what you need to cut through. Check one of the many videos on Youtube with isolated guitar parts from famous albums, you might be pretty surprised at how they sound on their own.
> A few examples (they all sound pretty dry and raspy, with surprisingly little low end):
> 
> Super dry, borderline fizzy, textbook 800-era tones. Add the bass and drums, and it all makes sense.
> 
> 
> That rhythm guitar is super bright and nasty in isolation (the isolated guitar parts on Killer Queen are even weirder sounding...but sound AMAZING in the context of the whole mix)
> 
> 
> Again, super dry, not a lot of low end. And it's already several parts piled up, which obviously sounds bigger. And I'd guess some kind of HF shelving was added on the way in, but there's still lots of top end.
> And Kirk's tone on the lead parts is downright NASTY (talk about sounding fuzzy) at the 4:15 mark...it all disappears in the mix though. It's already less prominent once the harmony guitar comes in. Same at the 5:40 mark (main solo), super ugly fuzzy agressive tone by itself...just awesome in the mix
> 
> Bright and papery is good, and the Marshall/57 combo provides that in spades !



The Maiden and Queen tracks sound pretty natural to me, except that the low end is far weaker than what I get from pointing an SM57 1 inch from the grille. I wish I knew how much, if at all, high passing was done on those tracks. The Metallica track sounds most like it was close-miked. If I could get a recorded tone like the one on Powerslave, I’d be on cloud nine.

These are my favorite classic ‘80s tones that I’d love to be able to approximate.


----------



## Seventh Son

_ripper_ said:


> I'd also add that those guitar parts aren't dry mic'ed tracks, but have all the mix and mastering post processing on them. So, you can imagine what they would sound like if they were the bone dry mic'ed tracks. That's probably why there's so little low end, its been hi passed to make room for the bass in the mix.


If the tracks were high-passed, it must have been pretty aggressive. Whenever I high-pass guitars around 100Hz, which is slightly above the customary 80Hz, there is no audible effect. I don’t start hearing the effect until about 150–200Hz. I played around with a few of my recent tracks and found that I generally prefer it somewhere around 150–180Hz, but no more than that.

Apart from raising the amp off the ground and using less bass on the amp, is there any way to reduce the boominess from close-miking without having to use post-EQ?


----------



## Seventh Son

_ripper_ said:


> First of all, I start with a sound I like in the room. Unfortunately, because my music room isn't treated, sometimes what I hear in the room isn't accurate, particularly with regard to the low end. That's where I might tweak the amp dials relative to what the mic is picking up. For example, if I'm hearing low end thunder in the room and the mic isnt picking it up, then there's a good chance the room is exaggerating the lows. Then I'll boost the bass and/or resonance on the amp. So basically, it's a mix of both the approaches you mentioned, such is the case when you're going it alone at home.
> 
> With regard to volume, I try to get the 100H a bit past '3' on the volume knob. Why '3'? Because I feel that at that point the sound starts to fill out and the speakers are moving. The fact that Gary Holt had the master of the 100H on '3' on his live rig in Slayer also had something to do with it, haha. Volume just gets things moving better, IMO. It's really loud at 3.
> 
> I remember your MV test, and indeed the tone changed drastically for the better when it was on '7'. I think that at that point the power tubes were getting really involved in the tone. I've seen something similar when playing with the crunch channel on the 100H with an attenuator and the volume on '10'. Magic started to happen. BTW, have you considered a load box like the Torpedo Captor? It seems like it might be a solution for you, you can run the amp as loud as you like without bothering anyone and use professional IRs for recording, not having to worry about miking.


I prefer the old-school way of miking the amp. Your approach of first setting the source and then getting the mic to pick it up as you hear it makes sense.

I was at GC yesterday and was flipping through a book on recording that had some interesting suggestions. The description of the “classic modern” way to mic an amp was an SM57 three quarters of the way between the cap and the edge, one inch off the grille. This sounds interesting, as it focuses on the midrange that you talked about. One of my issues with miking on the cap edge is that there isn’t a whole lot of midrange there, and hence my complaints of scooped tone on recordings, so moving the mic out toward the edge to capture that critical midrange sounds like a sensible idea, with the only major penalty being a duller overall tone, but I’m willing to take that in exchange for more mids.


----------



## WellBurnTheSky

Seventh Son said:


> If the tracks were high-passed, it must have been pretty aggressive. Whenever I high-pass guitars around 100Hz, which is slightly above the customary 80Hz, there is no audible effect. I don’t start hearing the effect until about 150–200Hz. I played around with a few of my recent tracks and found that I generally prefer it somewhere around 150–180Hz, but no more than that.
> 
> Apart from raising the amp off the ground and using less bass on the amp, is there any way to reduce the boominess from close-miking without having to use post-EQ?


Yeah, high-passing more aggressively than the "usual" 80Hz is definitely possible, and makes room for the bass and kick drum.
Also, if your take is too boomy, more the mic a few inches back, what you're hearing is called the proximity effect. Again, experiment with mic placement in all directions, and angling the mic as well.


----------



## _ripper_

Seventh Son said:


> If the tracks were high-passed, it must have been pretty aggressive. Whenever I high-pass guitars around 100Hz, which is slightly above the customary 80Hz, there is no audible effect. I don’t start hearing the effect until about 150–200Hz. I played around with a few of my recent tracks and found that I generally prefer it somewhere around 150–180Hz, but no more than that.
> 
> Apart from raising the amp off the ground and using less bass on the amp, is there any way to reduce the boominess from close-miking without having to use post-EQ?



Well, I usually start by setting the high pass filter at the frequency of lowest guitar string (E or D, depending on the tuning) and that usually suffices, TBH. Of course, the HP filter is set relative to the bass and kick drum in the mix, but I've never had to go higher than 100Hz.

I prefer the post-EQ approach for the same reason I think most guitarists do, I want to be inspired by the tone in the room when I play. I want to _feel_ those palm mutes! It helps me play better and track better. I don't want to be thinking _'Hmmm, this pencil thin tone will fit so great in the mix', _I want to feel the performance. The guy doing the mixing (which is usually me, but at a later stage) can sort out the low end after, haha. That's not to say I'll go overboard on the bass, I'll set the amp to sound balanced, but at the same time I know that some of the low end will be gone come mixing time.


----------



## Seventh Son

_ripper_ said:


> Well, I usually start by setting the high pass filter at the frequency of lowest guitar string (E or D, depending on the tuning) and that usually suffices, TBH. Of course, the HP filter is set relative to the bass and kick drum in the mix, but I've never had to go higher than 100Hz.
> 
> I prefer the post-EQ approach for the same reason I think most guitarists do, I want to be inspired by the tone in the room when I play. I want to _feel_ those palm mutes! It helps me play better and track better. I don't want to be thinking _'Hmmm, this pencil thin tone will fit so great in the mix', _I want to feel the performance. The guy doing the mixing (which is usually me, but at a later stage) can sort out the low end after, haha. That's not to say I'll go overboard on the bass, I'll set the amp to sound balanced, but at the same time I know that some of the low end will be gone come mixing time.


Those all sound like reasonable rules of thumb.


----------



## _ripper_

Seventh Son said:


> These are my favorite classic ‘80s tones that I’d love to be able to approximate.




I just did a quick test regarding Trooper. First of all, there's a healthy amount of room on that sound. Secondly if we're talking single mic, I'd say to not place it near the center of the speaker. Third, and perhaps most important, I could not really get near it with the DSL. To me, the DSLs have much more of a modern voice. Using my JMP-1 through the DSLs effect return was far better in that respect.

EDIT : I found this from an interview on the recording of Piece of Mind : "The room is the most important thing about recording. We kept the guitars separate and put the amps up in a big wooden room and just put mikes everywhere".


----------



## Seventh Son

_ripper_ said:


> I just did a quick test regarding Trooper. First of all, there's a healthy amount of room on that sound. Secondly if we're talking single mic, I'd say to not place it near the center of the speaker. Third, and perhaps most important, I could not really get near it with the DSL. To me, the DSLs have much more of a modern voice. Using my JMP-1 through the DSLs effect return was far better in that respect.
> 
> EDIT : I found this from an interview on the recording of Piece of Mind : "The room is the most important thing about recording. We kept the guitars separate and put the amps up in a big wooden room and just put mikes everywhere".


That is very helpful. Thank you for taking the interest to help. I am familiar with that unfortunately somewhat cryptic interview, which doesn’t say whether they did any close-miking, how many room mics they used, what kind, and in what proportion. I am pretty sure Birch continued using room-miking on Powerslave, which may explain the almost nonexistent low-end that someone commented on here.

I get reasonably close to the “The Trooper” tone on my DSL15C and DSL20CR. It’s a pretty dense, boxy tone, with some top-end fizz (in a good way), and a tinny kind of overall tone, also in a good way. That tone sounds killer on their covers of “Cross Eyed Mary” and “I’ve Got the Fire.” It sits perfectly in the mix. I like to use it as my target tone, since it is comparatively simple and therefore a good place to start in learning how to get certain things to translate to tape. The _Powerslave_ tone is very similar, but a touch thinner and less tinny and boxy.
Do you think it is possible that Birch used only room mics (maybe LDCs?) to capture that tone?

I also suspect that Randy was a fan of Dave Murray and classic Maiden, as his gear list (DiMarzio Super Distortions, Marshall, MXR Distortion+, MXR 10-band EQ, phaser, flanger, chorus) is identical with that of Mr. Murray, and that “Mr. Crowley” tone sounds almost the same as “The Trooper.” From research, I’ve gathered that Max Norman used a close mic and a distant room mic to capture that, but it is also possible that Randy multi-tracked those rhythm guitars, according to what I gathered from an interview.


----------



## _ripper_

Seventh Son said:


> That is very helpful. Thank you for taking the interest to help. I am familiar with that unfortunately somewhat cryptic interview, which doesn’t say whether they did any close-miking, how many room mics they used, what kind, and in what proportion. I am pretty sure Birch continued using room-miking on Powerslave, which may explain the almost nonexistent low-end that someone commented on here.
> 
> I get reasonably close to the “The Trooper” tone on my DSL15C and DSL20CR. It’s a pretty dense, boxy tone, with some top-end fizz (in a good way), and a tinny kind of overall tone, also in a good way. That tone sounds killer on their covers of “Cross Eyed Mary” and “I’ve Got the Fire.” It sits perfectly in the mix. I like to use it as my target tone, since it is comparatively simple and therefore a good place to start in learning how to get certain things to translate to tape. The _Powerslave_ tone is very similar, but a touch thinner and less tinny and boxy.
> Do you think it is possible that Birch used only room mics (maybe LDCs?) to capture that tone?
> 
> I also suspect that Randy was a fan of Dave Murray and classic Maiden, as his gear list (DiMarzio Super Distortions, Marshall, MXR Distortion+, MXR 10-band EQ, phaser, flanger, chorus) is identical with that of Mr. Murray, and that “Mr. Crowley” tone sounds almost the same as “The Trooper.” From research, I’ve gathered that Max Norman used a close mic and a distant room mic to capture that, but it is also possible that Randy multi-tracked those rhythm guitars, according to what I gathered from an interview.



The way I hear it, there's a more direct signal mixed in with a lot of room. So, in all likelihood a combination close and room micing was used. The issue here is that combining all those mics introduces phase cancellation of certain frequencies, and talented engineers use that as a sound shaping tool, as a form of EQ if you will. That sort of interaction is probably impossible to replicate with a singe mic and reverb.

You know what would really help here? A good quality live Maiden recording of that era. In the interview I posted they said that their studio gear is the same as their live gear with the addition of the room micing. Live, they probably use a single close mic on their cabs, so it'll be alot easier to get a fix on the base tone.


----------



## WellBurnTheSky

Yeah, 99% of the time room mics are LDC. But contrary to what you may think, room mics can be pretty bass-heavy, it's all in the placement. Use a looper to have your rig play a riff, and move around in the room, you'll find that next to walls (especially corners) low end is more pronounced.

And again, classic Maiden tones are textbook 2203 (or boosted 2203), and a DSL can get very close to this, depending on the cab and speakers used. My DSL100 with a 1960B using mid-80s G12T75s (those are close to G12-65s) most certainly does.



Seventh Son said:


> I also suspect that Randy was a fan of Dave Murray and classic Maiden, as his gear list (DiMarzio Super Distortions, Marshall, MXR Distortion+, MXR 10-band EQ, phaser, flanger, chorus) is identical with that of Mr. Murray, and that “Mr. Crowley” tone sounds almost the same as “The Trooper.” From research, I’ve gathered that Max Norman used a close mic and a distant room mic to capture that, but it is also possible that Randy multi-tracked those rhythm guitars, according to what I gathered from an interview.


The other way around then. Randy died in March 1982, and Blizzard of Ozz was release in 1980 (DoaM in '81), while Killers was released in 81, NotB in 82 and Piece of Mind in '83.
But those were pretty standard pieces of equipment back then, as apart from the Distortion+ there weren't that many OD/distortion boxes on the market (off the top of my head, RAT, D+ and its variants, TS-808, OD-1, and that's it).


----------



## Seventh Son

WellBurnTheSky said:


> Yeah, 99% of the time room mics are LDC. But contrary to what you may think, room mics can be pretty bass-heavy, it's all in the placement. Use a looper to have your rig play a riff, and move around in the room, you'll find that next to walls (especially corners) low end is more pronounced.
> 
> And again, classic Maiden tones are textbook 2203 (or boosted 2203), and a DSL can get very close to this, depending on the cab and speakers used. My DSL100 with a 1960B using mid-80s G12T75s (those are close to G12-65s) most certainly does.
> 
> 
> The other way around then. Randy died in March 1982, and Blizzard of Ozz was release in 1980 (DoaM in '81), while Killers was released in 81, NotB in 82 and Piece of Mind in '83.
> But those were pretty standard pieces of equipment back then, as apart from the Distortion+ there weren't that many OD/distortion boxes on the market (off the top of my head, RAT, D+ and its variants, TS-808, OD-1, and that's it).


Thank you for correcting the info bout Randy.

I also agree with you that the Trooper tone is textbook '80s 2203. That's why I am eager to learn how to approximate it in recording. Maiden's variant is, as you said, a textbook example, but, in my opinion, one of the most refined examples of that kind of tone.


----------



## Seventh Son

_ripper_ said:


> The way I hear it, there's a more direct signal mixed in with a lot of room. So, in all likelihood a combination close and room micing was used. The issue here is that combining all those mics introduces phase cancellation of certain frequencies, and talented engineers use that as a sound shaping tool, as a form of EQ if you will. That sort of interaction is probably impossible to replicate with a singe mic and reverb.
> 
> You know what would really help here? A good quality live Maiden recording of that era. In the interview I posted they said that their studio gear is the same as their live gear with the addition of the room micing. Live, they probably use a single close mic on their cabs, so it'll be alot easier to get a fix on the base tone.


Thank you. That is very helpful. If the premise that Birch used close-miking _and_ room-miking is right—and chances are it is—then you are right: It would be impossible to get that with just a single mic and reverb. Which leads me to the next question. I do have a second SM57. Is there any net benefit in getting the second mic out? If not, then the question would be, would it make sense to get an LDC and mic my living room if I want to try and approach the roomy Trooper tone. Basically, would that make sense, or is it a futile and wasteful endeavor? Or, put differently, if that is the kind of tone I am aspiring to capture, what is the most realistic and optimal result I could hope to get, being that I am just a home recordist without a professional studio at my disposal?

If none of the above are feasible, then a more realistic tone to aspire towards would be something like Maiden's tone on _Live After Death_, which to me always sounded a bit too scooped, but not entirely bad for its time. Similarly, other reviewers of the album often remark that the guitars sound too treble-y. I would ascribe this possibly to the drawbacks of close-miking, assuming Birch used only close-miking to capture the guitars on that live recording, as those guitars definitely sound more generic and a bit similar to the lackluster tones I can capture at home than the tones on all his studio records from _Piece of Mind_ ('83) through _Seventh Son of a Seventh Son_ ('88), and possibly even _No Prayer for the Dying_ ('90) and _Fear of the Dark_ ('93, Martin's last album with Maiden).

As part of my recently rekindled interest in _Live After Death_, I purchased the CD, whose booklet provides a complete list of all the microphones used on the recording. I was wondering what Birch most likely did with the guitars. There's the SM56 (SM58) and the MD421 listed, both likely candidates. The list is described in his notes as the very best he could get at the time for the purpose. Some of you might find it interesting.
6 Neumann KM84
4 Beyer M88
4 AKGD12
6 AKG 451
4 Sennheiser MD421
2 Sennheiser MD441
22 Shure SM56
8 Shure SM58


----------



## SmokeyDopey

Dude, just mic the room already! lol


----------



## WellBurnTheSky

Seventh Son said:


> I also agree with you that the Trooper tone is textbook '80s 2203. That's why I am eager to learn how to approximate it in recording. Maiden's variant is, as you said, a textbook example, but, in my opinion, one of the most refined examples of that kind of tone.


Since studio tones always are tricky to replicate (especially when it comes to room mics), you can try getting their live tones. Your DSL on Lead 1 (Lead 2 is too modern IMO), and a LP or Strat (depending on which one of Murray or Smith you're trying to emulate) with a Super Distortion in the bridge should get you pretty close. Throw a 57 in front of it, at the edge of the dustcap, 2 or 3 inches away from the grill, maybe slightly angled.

Edit: the thing with room mics is, they're totally room-dependant. There's absolutely no cookie-cutter approach to it, since each room sounds different anyway (which to a point is also true for close-miking), which entails totally different mics and mic placements.
And a 2nd 57 won't get you those either, since dynamic mics aren't very good at capturing ambience (unless you have super hot preamps, you'll have A TON of hiss from the preamp gain being pegged by the time you get anything usable from them).


----------



## Seventh Son

WellBurnTheSky said:


> Since studio tones always are tricky to replicate (especially when it comes to room mics), you can try getting their live tones. Your DSL on Lead 1 (Lead 2 is too modern IMO), and a LP or Strat (depending on which one of Murray or Smith you're trying to emulate) with a Super Distortion in the bridge should get you pretty close. Throw a 57 in front of it, at the edge of the dustcap, 2 or 3 inches away from the grill, maybe slightly angled.


I tried miking the amp with the SM57 on the cone, about 1.5 inches from the cone edge. Then I threw some basic EQ (I used GarageBand's "Clean Up Guitar" preset, which looks pretty standard) on the tracks, and it sounded not bad at all. Far from ideal, but much better. I am not sure how you, or many other guys, mic so close to the center. Every time I do it, I lose the midrange and body. Could it be that you regain some of it back, since you move the mic further away from the grille?


----------



## Australian

Its been a while-Logic Pro X upgrade it must be getting close.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

WellBurnTheSky said:


> And a 2nd 57 won't get you those either, since dynamic mics aren't very good at capturing ambience (unless you have super hot preamps, you'll have A TON of hiss from the preamp gain being pegged by the time you get anything usable from them).


https://www.sweetwater.com/store/de...ones-cl-1-cloudlifter-1-channel-mic-activator


----------



## Seventh Son

WellBurnTheSky said:


> Since studio tones always are tricky to replicate (especially when it comes to room mics), you can try getting their live tones. Your DSL on Lead 1 (Lead 2 is too modern IMO), and a LP or Strat (depending on which one of Murray or Smith you're trying to emulate) with a Super Distortion in the bridge should get you pretty close. Throw a 57 in front of it, at the edge of the dustcap, 2 or 3 inches away from the grill, maybe slightly angled.
> 
> Edit: the thing with room mics is, they're totally room-dependant. There's absolutely no cookie-cutter approach to it, since each room sounds different anyway (which to a point is also true for close-miking), which entails totally different mics and mic placements.
> And a 2nd 57 won't get you those either, since dynamic mics aren't very good at capturing ambience (unless you have super hot preamps, you'll have A TON of hiss from the preamp gain being pegged by the time you get anything usable from them).


I'm using the DSL15C with a Vintage 30 for most of my recording fun at home. I also have a DSL20CR with a G12T-75, which I intend to use for the second guitar on more serious recordings, where I can benefit from using two slightly different amps with different tubes (6V6 vs. EL34), different speakers, and a slightly different crunch character.

Is there any point in throwing a second SM57 on the amp? Also, if I were to get an LDC, the Rode NT-1 seems like a decent mic that's in my price range. However, that mic is only cardiod. Is something like that sufficient for room-miking?


----------



## _ripper_

Seventh Son said:


> Thank you. That is very helpful. If the premise that Birch used close-miking _and_ room-miking is right—and chances are it is—then you are right: It would be impossible to get that with just a single mic and reverb. Which leads me to the next question. I do have a second SM57. Is there any net benefit in getting the second mic out? If not, then the question would be, would it make sense to get an LDC and mic my living room if I want to try and approach the roomy Trooper tone. Basically, would that make sense, or is it a futile and wasteful endeavor? Or, put differently, if that is the kind of tone I am aspiring to capture, what is the most realistic and optimal result I could hope to get, being that I am just a home recordist without a professional studio at my disposal?
> 
> If none of the above are feasible, then a more realistic tone to aspire towards would be something like Maiden's tone on _Live After Death_, which to me always sounded a bit too scooped, but not entirely bad for its time. Similarly, other reviewers of the album often remark that the guitars sound too treble-y. I would ascribe this possibly to the drawbacks of close-miking, assuming Birch used only close-miking to capture the guitars on that live recording, as those guitars definitely sound more generic and a bit similar to the lackluster tones I can capture at home than the tones on all his studio records from _Piece of Mind_ ('83) through _Seventh Son of a Seventh Son_ ('88), and possibly even _No Prayer for the Dying_ ('90) and _Fear of the Dark_ ('93, Martin's last album with Maiden).
> 
> As part of my recently rekindled interest in _Live After Death_, I purchased the CD, whose booklet provides a complete list of all the microphones used on the recording. I was wondering what Birch most likely did with the guitars. There's the SM56 (SM58) and the MD421 listed, both likely candidates. The list is described in his notes as the very best he could get at the time for the purpose. Some of you might find it interesting.
> 6 Neumann KM84
> 4 Beyer M88
> 4 AKGD12
> 6 AKG 451
> 4 Sennheiser MD421
> 2 Sennheiser MD441
> 22 Shure SM56
> 8 Shure SM58



I wouldn't bother with a dynamic mic as a room mic. In fact, if you don't have a great room, acoustically speaking, I wouldn't bother at all. Its much simpler to grab a free IR loader and some impulses of great sounding rooms.

Regarding those mics, probably the 421 was used on the cabs. I've never used one myself, cos I really dig the 57 sound on V30s, but perhaps renting one and making some recordings with it may be an option to see if its closer to the tones you dig.

The problem with copping studio tones from that era is precisely the recording techniques used. Combination close and room miking for sure, and often there was some extravagant stuff done as well. (I remember reading about how part of Randy's tone was captured by setting a mic at the end of a tunnel they built in the studio). It seems to me that people don't do stuff like that anymore. _If _the guitars are recorded via mic'ing its more often that not close mic'ing with one or two mics plus reverb at mixing. I think that achieving the tone on Live after Death (for example) would be a realistic endeavor, because it can be reasonably approximated with your home recording setup. The studio tone from those albums... well, using a good room IR and tuning the final sound with Curve EQ would probably get you really, really close, but that's cheating.


----------



## Seventh Son

_ripper_ said:


> I wouldn't bother with a dynamic mic as a room mic. In fact, if you don't have a great room, acoustically speaking, I wouldn't bother at all. Its much simpler to grab a free IR loader and some impulses of great sounding rooms.
> 
> Regarding those mics, probably the 421 was used on the cabs. I've never used one myself, cos I really dig the 57 sound on V30s, but perhaps renting one and making some recordings with it may be an option to see if its closer to the tones you dig.
> 
> The problem with copping studio tones from that era is precisely the recording techniques used. Combination close and room miking for sure, and often there was some extravagant stuff done as well. (I remember reading about how part of Randy's tone was captured by setting a mic at the end of a tunnel they built in the studio). It seems to me that people don't do stuff like that anymore. _If _the guitars are recorded via mic'ing its more often that not close mic'ing with one or two mics plus reverb at mixing. I think that achieving the tone on Live after Death (for example) would be a realistic endeavor, because it can be reasonably approximated with your home recording setup. The studio tone from those albums... well, using a good room IR and tuning the final sound with Curve EQ would probably get you really, really close, but that's cheating.


Thank you. That makes sense. I'm very happy with the SM57. I recently got interested in the e906 and after checking out several videos on YouTube, I concluded I didn't like its boxy sound (not the good kind of boxy). The SM57 sounded better in every single comparison. I did the same with the MD421 and ended up not liking it either. It was too scooped in the midrange and lacking midrange "sizzle."

So, basically it sounds to me like I'm best off sticking with what I am doing: one SM57 on the cone, near the edge, a little bit if EQ thrown on the tracks, some reverb and delay for roominess. I tried that today and there results were promising. The midrange was definitely much more there with the SM57 placed closer to the outer edge of the cone. I hate to cheat even a little bit, as I'd like to be able to get acceptable tracks without any EQ, no matter how gentle, thrown on the track, but that's a minor transgression, I suppose. Also, as I mentioned above, I have tried it many times, but I really don't get how people can place their mics on the cap edge or the center and not get super scooped tones. There is just no midrange there. It just never works for me. To me, the cone (middle of, or a touch more toward the edge) sounds best, as it captures the critical midrange.

By the way, according to an interview with Max Norman I read, the tone on the _Blizzard_ album was captured with a close mic on the cab in the basement and a distant mic around the corner where the stairs go up.


----------



## WellBurnTheSky

Yeah, I do think you can get close to these tones (the live tones at the very least) with your 57. It's all in the placement !

Not too much a fan of the 609, the 906 is slightly better, but not my thing either. The 421...used it many times (and I have access to older 441s, which are MILES better), but honestly, the 57 is fine. A studio-owner friend of mine swears by the 421 though, but he's into more modern tones.

And yeah, room tones...finding a room that sounds good enough to warrant using it is an endeavor in itself, then miking it. Super tricky, and phase can be an issue very fast. Plus yeah, in the 80s miking a stairwell (the infamous Power Station trick), a corridor or multi-miking rooms and several amps (Michael Wagener explained how he got Lynch's tone on Under Lock And Key, several cabs in several rooms, including a tiled room, with several mics on each) were all par for the course...because recording budgets allowed enough studio time to experiment.


----------



## Seventh Son

WellBurnTheSky said:


> Yeah, I do think you can get close to these tones (the live tones at the very least) with your 57. It's all in the placement !


You might be right. I tried miking closer to the edge of the cone today and after throwing a gentle EQ curve on the track and some delay and reverb, was very pleased with the result. My problem in the past was that I tried placing the mic at the cap edge or the center, which only resulted in a scooped tone. So then I would move the mic out to get more midrange, which was then too dark. But to brighten it, I moved the mic back to the center and lost the mids again, which is of course impossible to get right, and which eventually even sent me down the rabbit hole of trying to mic the back of the combo, as well, in an effort to recoup the lost midrange. However, with the mic placed close to the edge and a little bit of post-EQ help, I am very happy with the result.

My last few questions.

Given what I said above, wouldn't it make sense to use two SM57s, one near the edge, and one close to the center, to get the best of the both worlds and less need for post-EQ? That shouldn't result in significant phase issues, as long as both mics are equidistant from the grille and far enough from each other, right? Or is this something that sounds good only in theory?
@WellBurnTheSky suggests placing the mic about 2–3 inches from the grille. If the low-end rumble is so easy to fix with post-EQ, why would anyone move the mic a bit further in close-miking? I have recently experimented extensively with different distances. To me, the SM57 starts sounding real thin real fast as it is moved away from the grille.

@_ripper_ Although I don't think it's an awful production, I am to this day disappointed by how _Live After Death_ sounds. The bass is way too high in the mix, crushing the guitars, and the guitars actually have some decent midrange, but are pretty thin and borderline scooped in the mix. The whole thing sounds very distant and muddy. Even I can record tracks in my living room that sound fuller and more present.


----------



## SmokeyDopey

1 close mic and 1 room mic? Let's not over complicate things. There won't be any (significant) phase issues unless the room is tiny. There's a good rule of thumb to avoid phase incoherencies when using 2 mics on the same source: 3 to 1 rule.

The distance of mic B should be 3 times farther away from the source than mic A.

Room acoustics. Maybe the room you're recording in wasn't a designed studio. Neither was Sound Studio in California, it was just a big storage room. And it happened to sound _great_.

Maybe your living room has a pretty cool personality. If you liked what the iPhone was picking up, I'm serious, give it a try as a room mic. Dump the iPhone recording into the DAW, align it with the 57 and see if it's useful at all.


----------



## Seventh Son

SmokeyDopey said:


> 1 close mic and 1 room mic? Let's not over complicate things. There won't be any (significant) phase issues unless the room is tiny. There's a good rule of thumb to avoid phase incoherencies when using 2 mics on the same source: 3 to 1 rule.
> 
> The distance of mic B should be 3 times further away from the source than mic A.
> 
> Room acoustics. Maybe the room you're recorrding in wasn't a designed studio. Neither was Sound Studio in California, it was just a big storage room. And it happened to sound _great_.
> 
> Maybe your living room has a pretty cool personality. If you liked what the iPhone was picking up, I'm serious, give it a try as a room mic. Dump the iPhone recording into the DAW, align it with the 57 and see if it's useful at all.


I'll definitely give that a try in a few days when I have some time for experimentation. It might yield some useful results.


----------



## _ripper_

Seventh Son said:


> Thank you. That makes sense. I'm very happy with the SM57. I recently got interested in the e906 and after checking out several videos on YouTube, I concluded I didn't like its boxy sound (not the good kind of boxy). The SM57 sounded better in every single comparison. I did the same with the MD421 and ended up not liking it either. It was too scooped in the midrange and lacking midrange "sizzle."
> 
> So, basically it sounds to me like I'm best off sticking with what I am doing: one SM57 on the cone, near the edge, a little bit if EQ thrown on the tracks, some reverb and delay for roominess. I tried that today and there results were promising. The midrange was definitely much more there with the SM57 placed closer to the outer edge of the cone. I hate to cheat even a little bit, as I'd like to be able to get acceptable tracks without any EQ, no matter how gentle, thrown on the track, but that's a minor transgression, I suppose. Also, as I mentioned above, I have tried it many times, but I really don't get how people can place their mics on the cap edge or the center and not get super scooped tones. There is just no midrange there. It just never works for me. To me, the cone (middle of, or a touch more toward the edge) sounds best, as it captures the critical midrange.
> 
> By the way, according to an interview with Max Norman I read, the tone on the _Blizzard_ album was captured with a close mic on the cab in the basement and a distant mic around the corner where the stairs go up.



Yeah that was it, the corner where the stairs go up. Don't know where that tunnel thing I posted before came from, haha.

If it were me, I'd stick with the single 57 + EQ and verb in the mix. There reason: you'll spend less time chasing tone and more time playing and recording! Honestly, the main reason I ditched modelers and went back to amps and cabs was that I was sick of tweaking and experimenting with all the possibilities. Forcing myself to keep it simple freed up a lot of time for actual playing. There's no reason why you cant get solid guitar tones in the context of a mix with your gear.

Oh, and one last thing regarding the midrange: I don't think the mids are lacking in the center mic positions. Rather, the other frequencies are hyped. But, when you hi pass and low pass in the mix, the end result is that the midrange is going to be more pronounced. The reason I mic at the cap edge is that I like the clarity. Also, its easier to cut frequencies (highs and lows when micing close to the center) with EQ than to add what isnt there (clarity when you mic near the edge). About halfway between center and edge can be a happy medium, though.

EDIT: Give this thread a read, it has a few suggestion for micing with a single SM57, and pay the most attention to Slipperman's post (#38): https://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-...ime/621132-micing-guitar-cab-single-sm57.html


----------



## Michael Roe

I just read the last few pages of this thread.
Getting a decent guitar tone is really not that complicated.
Here I was going for like a little more gain than an AC/DC type sound.

This was sooo easy to get that tone.
I simply ran my guitar into my Marshall Studio Vintage and used a load box then into my DAW. 
In the DAW all I added was impulse responses. Three of them on each side for the two L/R guitar tracks.
1) 57 at cap edge about an inch off of grill - gets the bite, attack, and mids
2) Ribbon at center of speaker about an inch off grill- captures all the bottom end beef and adds some smoothness to the highs
3) LDC room mic about 6 feet away off center ( just walk around cab and find that sweet spot with your ear-place the room mic there)
I pan the 1 & 2 IRs hard L/R
Then add the room mic to add depth and punch. Pan this one about 50% L/R. If you want more "in your face" tone pan the room more center and turn it up.
No EQ or low pass or high pass filters needed. There may be a very settle EQ on the guitar buss just for color- use an API or Neve EQ vst.


----------



## SmokeyDopey

True, it's not that hard. And like I've already mentioned maybe even using a phone as a room mic can get some cool results.

I've suggested the phone thing, but I also understand Seventh Son is aiming higher than just a "decent" tone. It seems that he is trying to mimic the work of legendary engineers. Not that it's impossible, but it'll probably require hours and hours of trial and error. You can also "cheat" a little with IR (as suggested previously) which can also save time/money when it comes to room sounds, studio equipment, etc.

To sum up: one thing is _decent_, and another is _legendary_.


----------



## Seventh Son

_ripper_ said:


> Yeah that was it, the corner where the stairs go up. Don't know where that tunnel thing I posted before came from, haha.
> 
> If it were me, I'd stick with the single 57 + EQ and verb in the mix. There reason: you'll spend less time chasing tone and more time playing and recording! Honestly, the main reason I ditched modelers and went back to amps and cabs was that I was sick of tweaking and experimenting with all the possibilities. Forcing myself to keep it simple freed up a lot of time for actual playing. There's no reason why you cant get solid guitar tones in the context of a mix with your gear.
> 
> Oh, and one last thing regarding the midrange: I don't think the mids are lacking in the center mic positions. Rather, the other frequencies are hyped. But, when you hi pass and low pass in the mix, the end result is that the midrange is going to be more pronounced. The reason I mic at the cap edge is that I like the clarity. Also, its easier to cut frequencies (highs and lows when micing close to the center) with EQ than to add what isnt there (clarity when you mic near the edge). About halfway between center and edge can be a happy medium, though.
> 
> EDIT: Give this thread a read, it has a few suggestion for micing with a single SM57, and pay the most attention to Slipperman's post (#38): https://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-...ime/621132-micing-guitar-cab-single-sm57.html


This is highly helpful information. I never thought of the center positions as having hyped lows and highs plus a healthy amount of mids; I mistakenly conceived of the center positions as being deficient in the midrange. I’m glad you clarified that for us.

And I couldn’t agree more with you on the desirability of the clarity from the center positions. I always loved the clarity but hated the swishy tone. However, now that I know that there’s a way to retain the brightness and bring the mids out, I can’t wait to try your suggestion tomorrow. How would you EQ the tracks in post-processing?


----------



## Robert Herndon Project

I used to mic cabinets, both in the studio and live. Then, I got tired of the big 4x12 Jacksons and started dowsizing.

Amazingly, one of the best live metal tones I have been able to create comes from my 1997 Marshall Valvestate VS265 2x12 stereo chorus combo.

For recording, however, it didn't sound great "on tape" so to speak, so I kept looking. 

I ended up with a Blackstar ID-core 100 watt that I use direct out into my DAW. I use it for all my home studio projects. Ot doesn't sound great in a live setting, but it sounds good on recordings to my ear and is very responsive to pick dynamics.

Here are two demos we recently recorded, and both feature my Gibson Les Paul (498T) through the Blackstar with no dirt pedal and only the amp's onboard reverb and delay used:

This certainly won't be everyone's favorite tone, bit I like it and it's kind of my signature tone whether I like it or not...


Listen to Road To Hell - Rory Gallagher Cover - 02/25/2019 by Von Herndon #np on #SoundCloud



Listen to Covering The Uncoverable - A Cover of Hendrix's/Dylan's Watchtower In A More Modern Style by Von Herndon #np on #SoundCloud


I'm playing all guitars and bass, plus handling vocals on these tracks.

Very happy with the Blackstar through my DAW....


----------



## _ripper_

Seventh Son said:


> This is highly helpful information. I never thought of the center positions as having hyped lows and highs plus a healthy amount of mids; I mistakenly conceived of the center positions as being deficient in the midrange. I’m glad you clarified that for us.
> 
> And I couldn’t agree more with you on the desirability of the clarity from the center positions. I always loved the clarity but hated the swishy tone. However, now that I know that there’s a way to retain the brightness and bring the mids out, I can’t wait to try your suggestion tomorrow. How would you EQ the tracks in post-processing?



Well, the old adage 'EQ to taste' sort of fits here. Here's the thing, EQ is highly contextual relative to the rest of the recording. Having said that, I'd default set the hi pass filter at the lowest note (82Hz if you're tuned to E) and move it up only if its obscuring the bass and kick. What most people call 'mud' is a little big higher in the frequency range and, if is a problem, is best removed with a separate EQ band, IMO. For the low pass filter just move it back from its highest setting until the nastiness is gone but the tone still retains clarity. Give your ears a change to get used to the EQ'ed tone, because its going to sound really dull at first in comparison. Let me restate that EQing really makes sense in the context of a mix and should be done (or at the very least checked) while listening to the full mix. There is a chance you may have to boost a tad in the upper mids if the tone is not cutting through the mix.


----------



## WellBurnTheSky

Yeah, "mud" is usually more in the 300Hz range, which is present in pretty much everything, and tends to add up a lot on a mix. Hence the need to carve a bit off lots of sources (not each and every time of course, but pretty often) to improve clarity.



Seventh Son said:


> @WellBurnTheSky suggests placing the mic about 2–3 inches from the grille. If the low-end rumble is so easy to fix with post-EQ, why would anyone move the mic a bit further in close-miking? I have recently experimented extensively with different distances. To me, the SM57 starts sounding real thin real fast as it is moved away from the grille.


Because it's always better to move the mic that fix stuff electronically (or in the digital domain).


----------



## _ripper_

@Seventh Son May I ask what your main settings are on the DSL15? The reason I'm asking is that I've found that the treble knob affects the mids (or the perception of mids) highly. For example, on the 100H and on OD1, turning up the treble from 4 to 5 while keeping the mids unchanged (at 4.5 in this example) changes the sound from really mid heavy to far more balanced. A very drastic change for just a single click on the knob.


----------



## _ripper_

WellBurnTheSky said:


> Yeah, "mud" is usually more in the 300Hz range, which is present in pretty much everything, and tends to add up a lot on a mix. Hence the need to carve a bit off lots of sources (not each and every time of course, but pretty often) to improve clarity.
> 
> 
> Because it's always better to move the mic that fix stuff electronically (or in the digital domain).



Also because the peak of the proximity effect is about at 200Hz and extends up over 500Hz. Its a different frequency space that what you're going after when hi passing. The main use of the hi pass filter in mixing is to clear up the absolute bottom of the mix, so that the bass and kick drum can reign free in their frequency space.


----------



## Seventh Son

O.K., here's something for you guys to overanalyze.

Some relevant stats.
Bass 5
Middle 5
Treble 2
Presence 3
Gain 2
Volume 3
HP: 82Hz
SM57 pointed at middle of cone (wall), about 4 fingers away from grille.


----------



## _ripper_

Seventh Son said:


> O.K., here's something for you guys to overanalyze.
> 
> Some quick stats of interest.
> Bass 5
> Middle 5
> Treble 2
> Presence 3
> Gain 2
> Volume 3
> HP: 82Hz
> SM57 pointed at middle of cone (wall), about 4 fingers away from grille.




Context would really help here. Are the drums and bass of The Trooper floating around anywhere?


----------



## Seventh Son

_ripper_ said:


> Context would really help here. Are the drums and bass of The Trooper floating around anywhere?


I tried posting the tracks I recorded, with the backing track, but Soundcloud keeps removing it for copyright reasons. You can download the backing track here: https://www.guitarbackingtrack.com/play/iron_maiden/the_trooper_(10).htm


----------



## _ripper_

@Seventh Son Ok, since you wanted an analysis, here's one for you to sink your teeth into. This is the EQ curve that matches your clip to the original. Before I comment on it, let me say that Maiden's tone has both more gain and more ambience. So, having said that, what I'm seeing are a little bass bump at about 100Hz, a big cut in the mud region were were discussing in this thread previously and a different mid voicing (+4.5db@700Hz, -4.5db@1.2kHz), plus a big difference in the upper mids (+8db@4kHz). Finally an extreme roll off of the highs after about 6kHz and a big boost in the lows under 50Hz.

So, now the million dollar question is: what are those differences attributed to? Personally, I think the difference we are seeing in the upper and lower registers may be due the fact that I wasn't working with optimal files and are probably exaggerated from reality. The rest are probably a combination of speaker, mic and amp voicing, as well as whatever EQ was used in the mixing stage.

BUT -and this is what it all boils down to- when I listened to your sound with the Maiden backing track, it sounded 'right', it sounded like I'd expect it to. I'd be happy with that tone, TBH. I'd just probably want a bit more 'bite' maybe.


----------



## Seventh Son

_ripper_ said:


> @Seventh Son Ok, since you wanted an analysis, here's one for you to sink your teeth into. This is the EQ curve that matches your clip to the original. Before I comment on it, let me say that Maiden's tone has both more gain and more ambience. So, having said that, what I'm seeing are a little bass bump at about 100Hz, a big cut in the mud region were were discussing in this thread previously and a different mid voicing (+4.5db@700Hz, -4.5db@1.2kHz), plus a big difference in the upper mids (+8db@4kHz). Finally an extreme roll off of the highs after about 6kHz and a big boost in the lows under 50Hz.
> 
> So, now the million dollar question is: what are those differences attributed to? Personally, I think the difference we are seeing in the upper and lower registers may be due the fact that I wasn't working with optimal files and are probably exaggerated from reality. The rest are probably a combination of speaker, mic and amp voicing, as well as whatever EQ was used in the mixing stage.
> 
> BUT -and this is what it all boils down to- when I listened to your sound with the Maiden backing track, it sounded 'right', it sounded like I'd expect it to. I'd be happy with that tone, TBH. I'd just probably want a bit more 'bite' maybe.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 57286


Thank you so much for this in-depth analysis. It really helps pinpoint trouble spots and gives me enough food for thought to keep me busy for days on end, as I go about addressing some of the trouble areas. Interestingly, all the things you mentioned confirm my main suspicions.

*Gain (Distortion)*
I used less distortion on my amp for three reasons:
(1) The DSL15C distortion is known to get into the fizz/fuzz territory very quickly, as the Ultra Gain Channel is based on the Lead 2 mode on the DSL100H, which Marshalls describes as "a high-gain, mid-boosted tone based on a hot-rodded JCM800 2203."
(2) I mistakenly attributed the clarity in Maiden's tracks to conservative distortion settings. (Online sources of Dave Murray's actual Classic Gain settings on his JMP-1 rack preamp inform us that Dave sets distortion at near 20—JMP-1's maximum! While I would not crank the Gain to 10 on my DSL15C, it is probably a good idea to crank the distortion a little more, as Mr. Murray seems to be a big fan of distortion.)
(3) Although it never made much sense to my brain or ears, I followed the conventional wisdom that says, use less gain than you think you need for recording.

Although I consider the Trooper tone more classic, I always thought that there was something to it that makes it sound kind of turbocharged and sizzling in the upper mids, but wasn't sure whether that was due to amounts of distortion used or due to the energized upper midrange I hear on the isolated tracks. Since you also believe I used too little distortion, I think it is safe to say that you are probably right. How much more is needed is open to debate, but it is probably safe to say that more than what I am using now will be a step in the right direction.
You also noticed the _big_ bump around *4kHz* in the original tracks. This is probably the second part of the sizzle equation. I have not had much success achieving it so far by EQ-ing the amp. Based on what you have observed, I consulted my Marshall online tone stack calculator, which confirmed that a big increase in Treble will indeed give me that lift around 4kHz. However, whenever I try that in real life, anything above 2 on the Treble knob thins out the tone, overshooting the 4kHz target and adding some fizz in the process as well. Maybe higher volumes are needed to thicken that 4kHz region and tame the fizz above it.

*700Hz Midrange*
It seems that I got the right amount of mids around 1kHz, but still fall short in the 700Hz area. This suggests that I could afford to push the mids on the amp a little more and go from 5 to 6, as the 700Hz area is exactly what the Middle knob controls, according to the online tone stack calculator.

*1.2kHz*
Not sure what to do to remedy this at the source. This is probably something that would have to be cut in the _mixing_ stage.

*200Hz*
This is straightforward. The 200Hz that is routinely cut to clean up mud.

*100Hz*
The bass bump could you noticed in the original track probably suggests that I am not using enough bass on the amp. It is likely that a careful increase in bass on the amp from 5 to 6 would probably be a good step in the right direction, as this is precisely the frequency that the Bass knob controls, according to the online tone stack calculator.

*Summary*
Overall, when I was initially in the room and set the amp controls, the resulting tone sounded very close to the original, but sounded a bit muffled and lifeless, which is exactly what your analysis confirmed. The microphone placement seemed fine, as the tone on tape captured a reasonable enough representation of what I was hearing in the room. Based on your analysis and comments, I think I can make immediate improvements by raising gain from 2 to 4, raising Bass from 5 to 6, raising Treble from 3 to 4, and raising mids from 5 to 6.


----------



## BftGibson

enjoying this thread .. am finally booked in may to record. spent this last year a/bing everything i could get my hands on....going to write everything down & take notes on all setting & mic positions this time around. Been a year & my guy says he has some new goodies..meaning mic's..have 3 M circuits all tweaked to liking(jtm45 6l6 fender tranny, jtm50 el 34(ss & tube rec) jmp50 1987 now 2204 4 holer..should be a blast..first time having 1960bx & 425 in the mix


----------



## Seventh Son

Hey guys! I just wanted to report that I've solved the puzzle to the Trooper tone.

I accidentally stumbled upon the solution tonight after revisiting one of my old posts, in which I shared and discussed Dave Murray's JMP-1 settings that are available on Youtube. I had tried those settings before, but they didn't work for me. The reason they didn't work was because the guys sharing those settings on Youtube assumed that because Dave sets everyone on 10, he must also set his Presence to 10. Needless to say, those settings yielded awful tones. However, knowing that the Bass-Middle-Treble settings supposedly came from Dave's own tour tech, I knew that there had to be some value in them. After doing another search on the Internet, I found the following two sources of Dave Murray's JMP-1 settings, one with information straight from a Marshall publication.
http://www.sound-design-tonstudio-hof.de/Marshall JMP-1 Sound-Settings.pdf
http://jmp-editor.mattzick.com/patches.html
The key to the tone is to set Presence to 2. Once you do that, you'll get beautiful distortion tones that have bite and smoothness at the same time. I tried the settings on a quick recording, with volume on 1 (it was around 10:00 p.m. here, so I couldn't push my luck with the neighbors), which is obviously less than idea, but the results were excellent. In fact, with those settings, the amp sounded amazing in the room and even all the way back in the bedroom, where I was recording. Super creamy and smooth, but with lots of bite and midrange sizzle.
Again, the settings on my DSL15C and DSL20CR were:
Bass 10
Middle 10
Treble 10
Presence 2
Gain 4
Dave also uses the Bass Shift feature on his JMP-1, which may be similar to the Deep Shift on the DSL. I left it disengaged on my amp, but it might be worth trying that as well in the future.
I recorded with an SM57 pointed at the middle of the cone (wall), 1 inch off the grille.

What made me decide to try these settings again was the fact that after running them through the online tone stack calculator, they seemed to fix the areas that we identified as problematic today. Below is a picture showing my settings from earlier today and Dave's own settings, where you can see that his settings add a bit more bottom end, keep the midrange (which I got right) roughly the same, and provide that critical upper-midrange around 4kHz that we identified today as key to the sizzle. The fact that Dave keeps his Presence at 2 also supports the drastic upper-frequency roll-off that @_ripper_ identified on his graph of Maiden's isolated tracks. My old settings are in red, Dave's settings are in green.


So, there you have it my friends: How to record classic metal tones à la Iron Maiden in your home recording studio. Thank you all for your enthusiastic support.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

the JMP is not an accurate way to set anything w/ a normal (passive) tone stack. The JMP has active everything & the presence really isn't a presence at all...

So, when you have your standard passive control, 10, is everything wide open & 0 is attenuated to "off".

W/ the active controls, they go from -6 to +6. "0", is like having your passive knob on 10. So, having the control on the JMP set to 2, is like having a passive knob at 10+2, but, the numbers don't actually line up, as you have 6 (+/-), so 2 = 1/3 of the value of 10, on a passive knob, but is also purely linear. Pots on DSL, etc, are not linear.

Presence, is a function of the power section, so, having presence on a preamp is nothing like having presence on the DSL.

If that makes sense...

When Iron Maiden recorded the Trooper, they didn't use the JMP-1. The Trooper was recorded in 1983, while the JMP-1 was released in 1992...


----------



## Seventh Son

Dogs of Doom said:


> the JMP is not an accurate way to set anything w/ a normal (passive) tone stack. The JMP has active everything & the presence really isn't a presence at all...
> 
> So, when you have your standard passive control, 10, is everything wide open & 0 is attenuated to "off".
> 
> W/ the active controls, they go from -6 to +6. "0", is like having your passive knob on 10. So, having the control on the JMP set to 2, is like having a passive knob at 10+2, but, the numbers don't actually line up, as you have 6 (+/-), so 2 = 1/3 of the value of 10, on a passive knob, but is also purely linear. Pots on DSL, etc, are not linear.
> 
> Presence, is a function of the power section, so, having presence on a preamp is nothing like having presence on the DSL.
> 
> If that makes sense...
> 
> When Iron Maiden recorded the Trooper, they didn't use the JMP-1. The Trooper was recorded in 1983, while the JMP-1 was released in 1992...


Interesting. I thought there might be a difference, so before trying the converted JMP-1 settings for Dave Murray, I read the JMP-1 manual, which states: "The next stage is to 'build' your required sound, firstly by selecting the channel OD1, OD2, Clean 1 or Clean 2 with or without bass shift, then by selecting the volume, gain, tone and effects levels. *These controls work in exactly the same way as a normal Marshall amplifier *[emphasis added], where increasing the gain brings in more overdrive and the tone selections interact to “shape” the sound.

Even if we assume that the Presence control doesn't work exactly the same way as on a "real" amp, it must have been designed to mimic what a regular Presence control would do. I would argue that there is some value in knowing that on the JMP-1, Dave presumably sets Presence at 2.

As to what the exact numbers should be on a DSL, we can't know, and you explained why. However, I think it helps to know as a starting point that Dave achieves what he calls his Classic Rhythm tone by setting Bass-Middle-Treble extremely high against Presence, which he keeps relatively low. By setting Bass-Middle-Treble on 10, Presence on 2, and gain on 4 on my DSLs, I got a fairly modern representation of his tone, something similar to his more modern tone on _Real Live One_/_Real Dead One_ and _Fear of the Dark_. It sounds pretty good. In fact, I was just listening to my recording from tonight and comparing it to "The Trooper" on _Real Dead One_, and I have to say it captures the essence. Dave used a huge amount of gain on that album, his tone is real fuzzy, but that's about the biggest difference between the results I got tonight with the converted settings and the live recording on _Real Dead One_.

Personally, I think my DSLs seem to have a sweet spot around Bass-Middle-Treble on 6–7, and Presence to taste (probably on the lower end of the spectrum for best results).

Lastly, I just want to make sure people on here don't misunderstand what I'm trying to do. My goal is not necessarily to copy the tones from their records, unless it can be easily done, but rather to learn how to dial in similar tones that _sound good_ and _record well_. If you want the exact Trooper tone, setting Bass-Middle-Treble to 10 is probably going to be a little too treble-y/thin, but it will still sound good/usable for recording, as long as Presence is kept low.


----------



## Seventh Son

Just to follow up, I repeated my recordings today under more realistic volume conditions and got excellent results that I am more than happy with. I used the online documentation and approximately converted the values. These are the values I used for the left and right guitars.

*Dave Murray*
Gain 4
Bass 8
Middle 9
Treble 8
Presence 2
Deep Switch: Off
Tone Shift: Off

*Adrian Smith*
Gain 4
Bass 10
Middle 7
Treble 7
Presence 6
Deep Switch: Off
Tone Shift: Off

Mic placement: Middle of cone (wall), 1 inch off the grille. Other than just a touch of reverb and delay to simulate room acoustics, no other processing was used, and the results were very good.


----------



## SmokeyDopey

Cool. Since you got that out of the way, let's hear your room


----------



## Seventh Son

Here are two samples. A bit rough sounding due to Soundcloud's compression and whatever else they put the files through, but you'll get an idea.


----------



## BftGibson

interestingly..that recording sounds like my jmp 2204


----------



## Seventh Son

BftGibson said:


> interestingly..that recording sounds like my jmp 2204


Yeah, not bad for a small 1x12" open-back combo.


----------



## _ripper_

Seventh Son said:


> Here are two samples. A bit rough sounding due to Soundcloud's compression and whatever else they put the files through, but you'll get an idea.




The Clairvoyant is one of my favorite Maiden tracks, nice one! Trooper sounds great with the added gain, too. I think you've done really well here!

Just a note to DSL 40C/100H users who might want to try out your settings, the DSL15C's red channel corresponds to our OD2. BTW, would you care to share an image of your mic placement position?

All this Maiden talk made me get out my JMP-1. What I realized is that my default settings on it sounded just effing great through the DSL100H effect return with the resonance and presence at '0'. Tight and focused. My DSL tone is similar, but I use an OD808 to get the same tightness and when you A/B them, the JMP-1 has zero fizz on the gain channel (OD2) whereas the DSL does (OD1). It was quite shocking to listen to them back to back, like that, cos now I feel I need to get the DSL modded to kill that fizz somehow, haha.


----------



## johnfv

Seventh Son said:


> Just to follow up, I repeated my recordings today under more realistic volume conditions and got excellent results that I am more than happy with...


Most important is that you are happy with it. It sounds good to me, particularly the soloed guitars  If I were doing the full band mix I might want more mids/highs to help cut through. Often times a track that works best in a mix, doesn't sound so great soloed. Some engineers argue you shouldn't listen to tracks soloed, only in the mix. I don't go that far but do try to avoid too much time listening solo. YMMV...


----------



## Seventh Son

_ripper_ said:


> The Clairvoyant is one of my favorite Maiden tracks, nice one! Trooper sounds great with the added gain, too. I think you've done really well here!
> 
> Just a note to DSL 40C/100H users who might want to try out your settings, the DSL15C's red channel corresponds to our OD2. BTW, would you care to share an image of your mic placement position?
> 
> All this Maiden talk made me get out my JMP-1. What I realized is that my default settings on it sounded just effing great through the DSL100H effect return with the resonance and presence at '0'. Tight and focused. My DSL tone is similar, but I use an OD808 to get the same tightness and when you A/B them, the JMP-1 has zero fizz on the gain channel (OD2) whereas the DSL does (OD1). It was quite shocking to listen to them back to back, like that, cos now I feel I need to get the DSL modded to kill that fizz somehow, haha.


I think the DSLs are just much more modern sounding. They remind me of Maiden's tone on _Real Live/Dead One_ and _Raising Hell_. To sound their best, they need some gain and brightness to bring out that sizzle and energy in power chords, while it is also important to control the fizz, which comes from the Treble control and is compounded by the Presence control. So, generally speaking, if you have your Treble set pretty high, set your Presence rather low.

My mic placement for the recording was to place the SM57 straight, aimed at the middle of the cone (see image below) and about 1 inch off the grille cloth.





I don't blame you for having so much fun with the JMP-1. Although I never had one, I know from Maiden's experience with it that it is capable of some amazing tones. And, as you said, it is fizz free. If dialed in right, the DSLs can sound great too, but it's a fizzier, softer type of tone that always reminds me of the Silver Jubilee models. You can get rid of the fizz on the DSLs with appropriate amp settings, but I think they excel when there's some fizz at least, as they sound muffled and boxy otherwise. From the YouTube video's I've seen of it, the JMP-1 is an impressive-sounding preamp and nails the Maiden tone with ease using the JMP-1 settings that are available on the net and that I linked to above.


----------



## _ripper_

Seventh Son said:


> I think the DSLs are just much more modern sounding. They remind me of Maiden's tone on _Real Live/Dead One_ and _Raising Hell_. To sound their best, they need some gain and brightness to bring out that sizzle and energy in power chords, while it is also important to control the fizz, which comes from the Treble control and is compounded by the Presence control. So, generally speaking, if you have your Treble set pretty high, set your Presence rather low.
> 
> My mic placement for the recording was to place the SM57 straight, aimed at the middle of the cone (see image below) and about 1 inch off the grille cloth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't blame you for having so much fun with the JMP-1. Although I never had one, I know from Maiden's experience with it that it is capable of some amazing tones. And, as you said, it is fizz free. If dialed in right, the DSLs can sound great too, but it's a fizzier, softer type of tone that always reminds me of the Silver Jubilee models. You can get rid of the fizz on the DSLs with appropriate amp settings, but I think they excel when there's some fizz at least, as they sound muffled and boxy otherwise. From the YouTube video's I've seen of it, the JMP-1 is an impressive-sounding preamp and nails the Maiden tone with ease using the JMP-1 settings that are available on the net and that I linked to above.



Yes, I agree. The truth is that the fizz of the DSL is pretty much inaudible in the mix. Still though, it's nice to have the option of high gain fizzless tone (with the JMP-1) when I want it. Running it though the effect return of the DSL100H gives me a JCM900 of sorts.


----------



## Seventh Son

_ripper_ said:


> Yes, I agree. The truth is that the fizz of the DSL is pretty much inaudible in the mix. Still though, it's nice to have the option of high gain fizzless tone (with the JMP-1) when I want it. Running it though the effect return of the DSL100H gives me a JCM900 of sorts.


As I exit the honeymoon phase, I am learning new things about the last recordings I posted.

I sent a recording to one my my guitar buddies. He said it sounded muffled. What I also noticed is that the midrange is still very weak, as I am still getting that phase-y, toppy, scooped tone on the recording.
I am going to attribute the muffled sound mainly to microphone placement, although proximity effect also plays a role. As I am finding, over and over again, middle of the cone, though theoretically viable, is not a good placement for my DSLs. When I made and posted the recording yesterday, the amp sounded amazing and very bright in the room, so the muffled tone on the recording is most likely a function of microphone placement. So, I redid the recording today with the mic placed at cap edge, an inch away from the cloth. I thought that worked better, but my buddy just texted me saying it still sounds muffled (it's that darn Presence a.k.a. Fizz control). So, for all my future recordings with the DSLs, I have decided to stick with that position and keep that variable constant, since the overwhelming majority believes that to be a good place to start and on my DSL combos it is almost obligatory if one wants to avoid the blanket-over-amp tone from placements further from the center.

Since @_ripper_ commented on how his bigger DSL also sounds fizzy, that got me thinking. I am going to conduct another experiment in the next few days. I am going to record my DSC15C through the built-in speaker and then hook up my 6100 to the same speaker, same enclosure, and see if I get the same result. If the fizz is coming from the DSL's preamp, then I expect the 6100 to sound fizz free. If, however, the fizz is due to the open-cab construction, then both amps should sound about equally fizzy. This will be an interesting experiment to conduct. Based on @_ripper_'s comments about his JMP-1 above, it sounds more likely than not that the DSL fizz is a result of the amp's voicing rather than cab construction. I will definitely report back and let you guys know what I found.


----------



## _ripper_

Seventh Son said:


> As I exit the honeymoon phase, I am learning new things about the last recordings I posted.
> 
> I sent a recording to one my my guitar buddies. He said it sounded muffled. What I also noticed is that the midrange is still very weak, as I am still getting that phase-y, toppy, scooped tone on the recording.
> I am going to attribute the muffled sound mainly to microphone placement, although proximity effect also plays a role. As I am finding, over and over again, middle of the cone, though theoretically viable, is not a good placement for my DSLs. When I made and posted the recording yesterday, the amp sounded amazing and very bright in the room, so the muffled tone on the recording is most likely a function of microphone placement. So, I redid the recording today with the mic placed at cap edge, an inch away from the cloth. I thought that worked better, but my buddy just texted me saying it still sounds muffled (it's that darn Presence a.k.a. Fizz control). So, for all my future recordings with the DSLs, I have decided to stick with that position and keep that variable constant, since the overwhelming majority believes that to be a good place to start and on my DSL combos it is almost obligatory if one wants to avoid the blanket-over-amp tone from placements further from the center.
> 
> Since @_ripper_ commented on how his bigger DSL also sounds fizzy, that got me thinking. I am going to conduct another experiment in the next few days. I am going to record my DSC15C through the built-in speaker and then hook up my 6100 to the same speaker, same enclosure, and see if I get the same result. If the fizz is coming from the DSL's preamp, then I expect the 6100 to sound fizz free. If, however, the fizz is due to the open-cab construction, then both amps should sound about equally fizzy. This will be an interesting experiment to conduct. Based on @_ripper_'s comments about his JMP-1 above, it sounds more likely than not that the DSL fizz is a result of the amp's voicing rather than cab construction. I will definitely report back and let you guys know what I found.



Hmmm, ok, but muffled relative to what? The entire Trooper recording (drums, bass, the works) sounds muffled relative to today's heavy music. It's why context (the rest of the mix) is important when judging a guitar tone. Often issues like this are sorted during mixing. People like Chris Lord-Alge will often boost the highs on guitars (8kHz) a great amount in their mixes. Often, a couple dbs at 2-4kHz can be also quite helpful. 

Also, the thing about fizz is that's is quite common in many high gain amps. I hear it on recordings all the time. And TBH it doesn't bother me, because there are simple ways of dealing with it. The JMP-1 doesn't have fizz, but the JMP-1 is a hybrid design, with most (if not all) of its distortion coming from op-amps and diodes, so maybe that's part of it, too.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

some music/recording/production requires it... (fizz)



The main thing is to start to realize how the sound in the room translates to recording. The fact that, afterward, you are realizing "issues" w/ your recording that you didn't at the time of recording is a good thing. That means that your ear is developing & getting more nuanced.

Some people probably wouldn't hear the difference between many of your takes.

I know that I'm getting technical w/ you, but, it's mostly just to get you to challenge yourself. When I see technical errors, I try to point them out, I'm not here to argue.

I also am trying to get you to think outside the box. It's easy to stick a mic into the cone & find the "sweet" spot (if there is such a thing), but, to learn how to master the room is a better art. When you can take that to any room & get similar results, then you eliminate limits.

There are times to do the basic/easy & times not to. Master phase in the room, don't run from it. Use it, because it can give you some cool stereo effects. Learn the different mic'ing techniques I posted earlier. They will help you in a lot of ways. I learned them early on & have been able to use them for 30 years now.

I also learned acoustic geometry & design & worked doing soundproofing, etc. That all plays into things. Not everyone wants to, or needs to learn all that stuff, but, if you can learn a little about a lot of things, it'll help.

I know guys that play phenomenal, but can't plug in a microphone. 

If that ends up being you (in the general sense), then you need to make sure you find someone proficient to do the engineering for you. It still helps to know a little bit, so you can communicate w/ the guy who does know.

@_ripper_ : there's a mod page that changes the mid on the JMP-1 to the frequency of the JCM800 series from the JCM900 series tones...

I had started a post about it here:

http://www.marshallforum.com/threads/jmp-1-pre-amp-mod-ext-link.53521/

unfortunately, the source thread deleted the images. 

I was talking w/ Santiago, & he convinced me, that, one of these days, I want to change out all the op-amps & put in sockets, so I can plug in different ones to see if I can't get better headroom & breakup, so that it doesn't come out so bleak. Also, I wonder if that would help solve the effects loop overdrive issue.

I've learned how to use the loop fine, just run effects w/ a dry kill setting, so you aren't running that extra signal through it, but, it would be nice to not have that limitation (problem).

IDK though, I have a few JMP-1 patches in the Kemper & also the JMD:1, that sound pretty killer. The Kemper ones are actually Iron Maiden ones that someone loaded up, but, they have no cab-sim. I added a cab to one & it's definitely there. They have 3 profiles,




the N/A is the cabinet, so it's a direct sound. I don't have my system hooked up, but, that's on the exchange..

I'd hate to do mod's to the JMP & then sell it for a loss of value, because I butchered it. I've had it since '92. It still has the original battery...


----------



## Seventh Son

Dogs of Doom said:


> some music/recording/production requires it... (fizz)
> 
> 
> 
> The main thing is to start to realize how the sound in the room translates to recording. The fact that, afterward, you are realizing "issues" w/ your recording that you didn't at the time of recording is a good thing. That means that your ear is developing & getting more nuanced.
> 
> Some people probably wouldn't hear the difference between many of your takes.
> 
> I know that I'm getting technical w/ you, but, it's mostly just to get you to challenge yourself. When I see technical errors, I try to point them out, I'm not here to argue.
> 
> I also am trying to get you to think outside the box. It's easy to stick a mic into the cone & find the "sweet" spot (if there is such a thing), but, to learn how to master the room is a better art. When you can take that to any room & get similar results, then you eliminate limits.
> 
> There are times to do the basic/easy & times not to. Master phase in the room, don't run from it. Use it, because it can give you some cool stereo effects. Learn the different mic'ing techniques I posted earlier. They will help you in a lot of ways. I learned them early on & have been able to use them for 30 years now.
> 
> I also learned acoustic geometry & design & worked doing soundproofing, etc. That all plays into things. Not everyone wants to, or needs to learn all that stuff, but, if you can learn a little about a lot of things, it'll help.
> 
> I know guys that play phenomenal, but can't plug in a microphone.
> 
> If that ends up being you (in the general sense), then you need to make sure you find someone proficient to do the engineering for you. It still helps to know a little bit, so you can communicate w/ the guy who does know.
> 
> @_ripper_ : there's a mod page that changes the mid on the JMP-1 to the frequency of the JCM800 series from the JCM900 series tones...
> 
> I had started a post about it here:
> 
> http://www.marshallforum.com/threads/jmp-1-pre-amp-mod-ext-link.53521/
> 
> unfortunately, the source thread deleted the images.
> 
> I was talking w/ Santiago, & he convinced me, that, one of these days, I want to change out all the op-amps & put in sockets, so I can plug in different ones to see if I can't get better headroom & breakup, so that it doesn't come out so bleak. Also, I wonder if that would help solve the effects loop overdrive issue.
> 
> I've learned how to use the loop fine, just run effects w/ a dry kill setting, so you aren't running that extra signal through it, but, it would be nice to not have that limitation (problem).
> 
> IDK though, I have a few JMP-1 patches in the Kemper & also the JMD:1, that sound pretty killer. The Kemper ones are actually Iron Maiden ones that someone loaded up, but, they have no cab-sim. I added a cab to one & it's definitely there. They have 3 profiles,
> 
> View attachment 57334
> 
> 
> the N/A is the cabinet, so it's a direct sound. I don't have my system hooked up, but, that's on the exchange..
> 
> I'd hate to do mod's to the JMP & then sell it for a loss of value, because I butchered it. I've had it since '92. It still has the original battery...


I am definitely still learning how to hear things. I am finding that no matter what settings and microphone placement I try, I am lacking girth in the lower and regular midranges, and that is why what I am hearing on the recording sounds thin. Overall, I am also finding that I like the mic placed on the grille; it just seems to give me more oomph in that range where the thickness comes from. Also, as much I as dislike it in the room, it's important to not be shy with the Presence control to prevent the recording from sounding muffled.

@_ripper_ You mentioned that the original Trooper recording sounds muffled by today standards. I always thought _Piece of Mind_, along with _Powerslave_, and _Brave New World_ to be among Maiden's most present and transparent sounding albums. I think you are confusing the boxy mids on _Piece of Mind_ with muffled. I would rather argue that Maiden's modern production with Kevin Shirley is muffled. A good example of that is "Starblind" on the _Final Frontier_ album or "If Eternity Would Fail" on the _Book of Souls_ album. On guitars, Kevin uses the X-Y technique with two mics, and SM57 and a M201, 6 inches from the cone (wall), with the M201 added for extended bass capture, and he mixes Steve Harris's bass so that it sounds far less percussive and much deeper and muddier. His production is so muddy that it's often hard to make out what individual guitars are doing when a player adds a small melody underneath power chords. I realize that it is challenging to work with three guitars in the band, but I think there are ways to record and mix those albums for more clarity. He overshot and produced a very sterile album in _Brave New World_, where the guitars sounded too round and separated, but most of the time it's the opposite—bass-heavy, chunky guitars that don't work for Maiden's style as Maiden are not a palm-mute oriented band.


----------



## SmokeyDopey

The more muffled sound (compared to what you can record today) is very likely to be, in part at least, the tape recording. First recording all the tracks on the 2 inch tape, then recording the mixdown to 1/4 inch tape.


----------



## Seventh Son

I did an interesting experiment. I dialed in a good sound in the room and got real close to the speaker (turned volume down a bit, of course). All I heard emanating from the speaker, regardless of where I put my ear, was some shade of fizzy, thin tone that is lacking in midrange thickness. It sounded exactly like what the microphone is capturing on recordings, which now makes sense. Unless I am missing something, it seems that the only solution to my problem is to look into room miking, unless anyone has discovered a way to get the room sound from close-miking.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Seventh Son said:


> I am definitely still learning how to hear things. I am finding that no matter what settings and microphone placement I try, I am lacking girth in the lower and regular midranges, and that is why what I am hearing on the recording sounds thin. Overall, I am also finding that I like the mic placed on the grille; it just seems to give me more oomph in that range where the thickness comes from. Also, as much I as dislike it in the room, it's important to not be shy with the Presence control to prevent the recording from sounding muffled.
> 
> @_ripper_ You mentioned that the original Trooper recording sounds muffled by today standards. I always thought _Piece of Mind_, along with _Powerslave_, and _Brave New World_ to be among Maiden's most present and transparent sounding albums. I think you are confusing the boxy mids on _Piece of Mind_ with muffled. I would rather argue that Maiden's modern production with Kevin Shirley is muffled. A good example of that is "Starblind" on the _Final Frontier_ album or "If Eternity Would Fail" on the _Book of Souls_ album. On guitars, Kevin uses the X-Y technique with two mics, and SM57 and a M201, 6 inches from the cone (wall), with the M201 added for extended bass capture, and he mixes Steve Harris's bass so that it sounds far less percussive and much deeper and muddier. His production is so muddy that it's often hard to make out what individual guitars are doing when a player adds a small melody underneath power chords. I realize that it is challenging to work with three guitars in the band, but I think there are ways to record and mix those albums for more clarity. He overshot and produced a very sterile album in _Brave New World_, where the guitars sounded too round and separated, but most of the time it's the opposite—bass-heavy, chunky guitars that don't work for Maiden's style as Maiden are not a palm-mute oriented band.


I'm not familiar w/ the combo you are using, does it have the mid-shift button? I take it, you have a resonance button?

The mid-shift button will drop that lower mid frequency you're talking about. I've never owned a DSL, but had 3 TSL amp's & also the JMP-1 has the mid-shift. Those make it more "scooped" w/ a more hi-fi (modern) sound.

Also, that will be one of the limitations of the SM57. A while back, you said something about the 421 mic being more thin, but that was not correct. Maybe some demos, they didn't use it right. The 421, has a more fuller sound. W/ that, the upper frequencies are more mellow, because of the fuller low-mid tones.






this shows a pretty flat graph. 

this shows w/ the roll-off filter. There's 4 stages of roll-off:






http://www.coutant.org/md421u4/

The Shure SM57, shows a bump in the high frequencies & a rolloff in the low frequencies, starting at around 180hz.






I'm not sure about the different bass responses in the Beta A graphs, you can read about that here:

https://musicplayers.com/reviews/recording/2007/1207_Shure.php

here's some good info on the SM57:

http://www.dogbox.biz/recording-hip-hop-and-metal-vocals-the-sm7b-321

comparing it to the SM7.

Another thought... re: presence

The presence control, seems to add a lot more high frequency excitement, at lower volumes. When you crank the amp, that becomes less exaggerated, where the high volume balances out the tone. If they recorded loud, then possibly their high presence was mellowed out by that balance in volume.

Michael Schenker likes to run his treble low & his presence high. In fact, he has presence all the way up & treble at less than 1.

For some reason, he only worked w/ Birch on 1 album:





whole album from vinyl:



Not sure of his settings here, but this album has a pretty raw, aggressive sound. Recorded around the same time as Piece of Mind. Probably more budgeted...


----------



## SmokeyDopey

Here is a demo of what a single mono room mic contributes to the general sound on drums. It first starts with the room mic, then it's muted and unmuted throughout.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Seventh Son said:


> I did an interesting experiment. I dialed in a good sound in the room and got real close to the speaker (turned volume down a bit, of course). All I heard emanating from the speaker, regardless of where I put my ear, was some shade of fizzy, thin tone that is lacking in midrange thickness. It sounded exactly like what the microphone is capturing on recordings, which now makes sense. Unless I am missing something, it seems that the only solution to my problem is to look into room miking, unless anyone has discovered a way to get the room sound from close-miking.


do you have a wood floor? carpet?

The only way to get room, is to capture the reflections of the room.

You can try facing your amp closer to a wall & close mic'ing & that will capture the slap back. The only problem is, that there won't be any distance or absorption., so the slap back will be relatively quick, which will give you a boxy feel.

In my ISO box, it actually isn't so boxy, because the foam absorbs the sound, so that the slapback isn't like a barrage of bounce at a fast speed. But, then, I use a condensor mic, tilted 45º away from the voicecoil, at the position where the cap meets the cone. It captures the sound in the box, but not overwhelmingly.

I still add reverb to that though.

If you try aiming the cabinet towards the wall, try different distances & also, try different angles (not aiming square at the wall). Try 20-30º angles, so you're not getting a strong slapback, but a reflection going beyond the mic.

Remember, angles are just as important as distance & the surfaces. Learning to manipulate them can take you far.


----------



## johnfv

If you want to exaggerate the "room" sound, try compressing the room mic. Works better on drums than guitar but try compressing the HELL out of it


----------



## SmokeyDopey

If the room contributes positively to the sound but it isn't big enough (or the decay isn't long enough), I rather add a little bit of reverb to the room mic instead of the direct mic. It just sounds more natural to my ears. Sometimes if the room mic isn't that great I don't use it in the mix, but I _do _use it to trigger a reverb. So the actual room track isn't going to the master bus, it's just triggering a separate FX channel with a reverb on it (100% wet signal). The FX channel obviously goes to the master bus, unlike the dry room track (if that makes any sense).


----------



## Seventh Son

Dogs of Doom said:


> do you have a wood floor? carpet?
> 
> The only way to get room, is to capture the reflections of the room.
> 
> You can try facing your amp closer to a wall & close mic'ing & that will capture the slap back. The only problem is, that there won't be any distance or absorption., so the slap back will be relatively quick, which will give you a boxy feel.
> 
> In my ISO box, it actually isn't so boxy, because the foam absorbs the sound, so that the slapback isn't like a barrage of bounce at a fast speed. But, then, I use a condensor mic, tilted 45º away from the voicecoil, at the position where the cap meets the cone. It captures the sound in the box, but not overwhelmingly.
> 
> I still add reverb to that though.
> 
> If you try aiming the cabinet towards the wall, try different distances & also, try different angles (not aiming square at the wall). Try 20-30º angles, so you're not getting a strong slapback, but a reflection going beyond the mic.
> 
> Remember, angles are just as important as distance & the surfaces. Learning to manipulate them can take you far.


I live in an apartment with carpets, so not much echo in here. I'll try some other placements, but my suspicion is that it won't make a big enough difference. What I need to do, is find a place where I can blast this amp on 8, where the power amp really kicks in, record, and then see if that helps, because as you mentioned, the high frequencies get smoothed out with more volume. I've been recording the past few days with volume on 3 (full-power mode), and that's already pushing it with the neighbors, but I record only during the hours when most of them are at work.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

can you place something hard, like plywood under the cab/mic? Or does the bathroom have lino/wood?

You might get some bounced reflections that way, w/o getting that boxed in sound.


----------



## Seventh Son

Dogs of Doom said:


> I'm not familiar w/ the combo you are using, does it have the mid-shift button? I take it, you have a resonance button?
> 
> The mid-shift button will drop that lower mid frequency you're talking about. I've never owned a DSL, but had 3 TSL amp's & also the JMP-1 has the mid-shift. Those make it more "scooped" w/ a more hi-fi (modern) sound.
> 
> Also, that will be one of the limitations of the SM57. A while back, you said something about the 421 mic being more thin, but that was not correct. Maybe some demos, they didn't use it right. The 421, has a more fuller sound. W/ that, the upper frequencies are more mellow, because of the fuller low-mid tones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this shows a pretty flat graph.
> 
> this shows w/ the roll-off filter. There's 4 stages of roll-off:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.coutant.org/md421u4/
> 
> The Shure SM57, shows a bump in the high frequencies & a rolloff in the low frequencies, starting at around 180hz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure about the different bass responses in the Beta A graphs, you can read about that here:
> 
> https://musicplayers.com/reviews/recording/2007/1207_Shure.php
> 
> here's some good info on the SM57:
> 
> http://www.dogbox.biz/recording-hip-hop-and-metal-vocals-the-sm7b-321
> 
> comparing it to the SM7.
> 
> Another thought... re: presence
> 
> The presence control, seems to add a lot more high frequency excitement, at lower volumes. When you crank the amp, that becomes less exaggerated, where the high volume balances out the tone. If they recorded loud, then possibly their high presence was mellowed out by that balance in volume.
> 
> Michael Schenker likes to run his treble low & his presence high. In fact, he has presence all the way up & treble at less than 1.
> 
> For some reason, he only worked w/ Birch on 1 album:
> 
> View attachment 57344
> 
> 
> 
> whole album from vinyl:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure of his settings here, but this album has a pretty raw, aggressive sound. Recorded around the same time as Piece of Mind. Probably more budgeted...



The Schenker album sounds like a Birch production, but I need to give it a few more focused listens before I can comment more.

Regarding the Mid Shift button, I don't use it. It scoops the mids for a more modern metal tone. Also, the DSL15C has a Deep switch (really a Resonance button), but I never had much use for it, as I find it loosens the tone too much, whereas I am trying to concoct a boxy, mid-range-y guitar tone on the recording.

Regarding the SM57, I doubt that the microphone is of significance here. When I put my ear to the speaker, I am hearing exactly what the microphone is (pretty faithfully) picking up. In close-miking, the issue is with the source in the sense that the microphone is only hearing what is there in front of it, which in my case is a tone with either missing mids or hyped bass and highs (@_ripper_ believes that mids our out-hyped by lows and highs, rather than missing, at the center). When I step back, the tone in the room sounds exactly like what I am going for. I am sure that the amp, though not a half-stack, is capable of delivering something along the lines of what I am trying to record, so the issue isn't gear either.

The disappointing results most likely boil down to one or a combination of the following.

My insufficient expertise
Insufficient volume level
Reliance on close-miking only
Also, thank you guys for sticking around and trying to help. This is so friggin' frustrating for me, so I am sure you must also be frustrated at the lack of significant progress. Work for me slows down during the summer months, so I'll have more time to do additional research and try a few more things.


----------



## Seventh Son

Dogs of Doom said:


> can you place something hard, like plywood under the cab/mic? Or does the bathroom have lino/wood?
> 
> You might get some bounced reflections that way, w/o getting that boxed in sound.


This is my current setup.



The amp is raised on the end table, facing the window and a corner with a large bookcase, which allow sound to pass through and absorb it, while also bouncing reflections past the microphone due to angle of the amp. I don't know if there's a better way. This seemed like a reasonable setup to me.


----------



## SmokeyDopey

That is very reasonable.
Is there a spot where you stand (like the hallway for example) that you really like how the amp interacts with the room? Place a mic there. Whatever mic you have handy. If you want to make it sound bigger, use the room mic to trigger a reverb.

And I agree that more volume will yield better results, but I can see how volume is an issue. Neighbors aren't generally thrilled with these kinda things.


----------



## WellBurnTheSky

Remember that someone's muffled is someone else's smooth. Well all hear things differently, which makes communicating about tone complicated at times (something anyone working in audio is painfully aware of).
Also, tape isn't darker, it's actually pretty full range. One thing though is, in the analog domain, you always record hotter, hitting the pres on the desk and on the tape machine harder (to get a better SNR), which generates some subtle saturation, translating into a slight smoothing of transient peaks. Which you hear as subtle compression and a "smoother" overall tone. But it can be just as bright. Also remember that anything mastered for vinyl has by necessity much less low-end content than what's mastered for CD or digital files. Hence an overall potential different tonal balance.



Seventh Son said:


> unless anyone has discovered a way to get the room sound from close-miking.


Simple: use a microphone that has a figure-8 pattern (ribbon or LDC condenser). Careful that with those, both sides are equally present, which might mean to much of a good thing (room reflections).
Also, in my experience, miking very off-center (as you do if I followed everything correctly) tends to be too dark (or dull) to really work in the context of a mix.
And to me (but that's how I hear things, YMMV) the 421 never worked, I much prefer older 441s, it's more natural while still being smoother than a 57 (441s are crazy expensive these days though, especially the older ones). A studio owner friend of mine (who also is a monster guitar player, former Yamaha demo guy) swears by the 421 for electric guitar, so...to each his own.


----------



## Seventh Son

WellBurnTheSky said:


> Remember that someone's muffled is someone else's smooth. Well all hear things differently, which makes communicating about tone complicated at times (something anyone working in audio is painfully aware of).
> Also, tape isn't darker, it's actually pretty full range. One thing though is, in the analog domain, you always record hotter, hitting the pres on the desk and on the tape machine harder (to get a better SNR), which generates some subtle saturation, translating into a slight smoothing of transient peaks. Which you hear as subtle compression and a "smoother" overall tone. But it can be just as bright. Also remember that anything mastered for vinyl has by necessity much less low-end content than what's mastered for CD or digital files. Hence an overall potential different tonal balance.
> 
> 
> Simple: use a microphone that has a figure-8 pattern (ribbon or LDC condenser). Careful that with those, both sides are equally present, which might mean to much of a good thing (room reflections).
> Also, in my experience, miking very off-center (as you do if I followed everything correctly) tends to be too dark (or dull) to really work in the context of a mix.
> And to me (but that's how I hear things, YMMV) the 421 never worked, I much prefer older 441s, it's more natural while still being smoother than a 57 (441s are crazy expensive these days though, especially the older ones). A studio owner friend of mine (who also is a monster guitar player, former Yamaha demo guy) swears by the 421 for electric guitar, so...to each his own.


I agree that we perceive things differently. However, I do have to admit that miking around the middle of the cone, although it gives more mids, always tends to sound dull and papery to my ears as well. After listening to the speaker up-close yesterday, I realized that all the positions have that fizz going on, so might as well stick the mic somewhere where I at least get more brightness (for example, where the cap meets the cone). So far, based on my mounting experience, I think the "sweet-spot" theory is an internet myth at worst, or misleading choice of wording at best. I don't think that microphone placement is a matter of right vs. wrong, but rather a creative choice to a large degree, with some practical advantages of certain placements over others, such as placing the mic near or at the center for the necessary brightness to match the amp's brightness in the room and to punch through in a mix.

Same goes for mic choice. Creative choice. When I put my ear to the speaker yesterday, I heard exactly what the SM57 is hearing, so it's not the mic's fault that my recordings are dominated by thin upper treble frequencies. I also like the MD421, e906, and e609, for example, but prefer the SM57 because it sounds a bit more energetic with the top end sizzle (the good kind of fizz). The e907 sounds a bit vintage-boxy to my ear and is too vintage sounding for my style. If I were into Queen or something similar, that's the mic I would use. The MD421 has a very different midrange than the SM57, where I prefer the SM57's voicing. Again, personal preference, not a matter of better vs. worse. All of the standard dynamics are good choices.

I'll keep your suggestion to use a ribbon in mind. I am hesitant to go that route right now, because for now, I believe that my thin recordings are not the result of mic choice or recording equipment in general. According to the Internet at least, many great rock recordings were made with just an SM57. I also think the microphone is very accurate and certainly high quality enough, and that throwing more money at the problem is unlikely to make it go away.


----------



## johnfv

This mic shootout is pretty cool, a well controlled comparison of several kick drum mics. I enjoyed listening to the clips "blind" first and trying to decide which ones I liked best. Some of my old favorites held up well but I was impressed by some others (like the ATM250) which I have not used.
https://www.sweetwater.com/insync/kick-drum-mic-shootout-with-sound-samples/


----------



## _ripper_

@Dogs of Doom Yeah, I dont want to mess with my JMP-1 for the exact same reason. I've had it for years too and want to keep it stock!

@Seventh Son I think the 'cap edge' mic position is touted so much because it's an acceptable compromise or, at least, a decent starting point. I also think that when we start to get too scientific about recording guitar sound we run the risk of losing sight of the big picture.

Back in the early 2000s on the Line 6 forum, some of us were doing EQ matching and cloning guitar sounds with our PODs, way before Kemper and Fractal even existed. Back then, if you could find me a part of a song with solo'd guitar part I'd make a dear ringer for it with my POD and CurveEQ. Funnily, I never ONCE used any of those famous guitar tones that I recreated to record a single thing. For my stuff I always preferred my own presets. Relatedly, one of the reasons that I don't like IRs is the loss of control, I feel like it's not 'my' sound anymore.

Now, I know you've said that you're not looking to copy a specific guitar tone but rather to achieve a certain tonal balance, but that balance is highly contextual. The original Trooper guitars would probably sound terribly out of place in other mixes. I honestly feel that many of the sounds you've posted here would sound 'right' when mixed with the rest of a band. The guy doing the mixing would sort out any issues. Engineering (what you're doing right now) and mixing are two different crafts, and both are vital to the final sound.

I think the most important aspect is the song, and not the guitar tone in an of itself. In fact, the last time I remember being highly impressed with a guitar sound was on Metallica's Black Album, Load, and Reload. Probably my favorite recorded guitar sounds of all time. There are a lot of shit songs on those albums though, regardless of how great James' guitar sounds.


----------



## WellBurnTheSky

Seventh Son said:


> I'll keep your suggestion to use a ribbon in mind. I am hesitant to go that route right now, because for now, I believe that my thin recordings are not the result of mic choice or recording equipment in general. According to the Internet at least, many great rock recordings were made with just an SM57. I also think the microphone is very accurate and certainly high quality enough, and that throwing more money at the problem is unlikely to make it go away.


The ribbon suggestion only was an answer to your question of wether there was a mic that could pickup both ambiance and proximity/close miking.
But I agree, the 57 definitely should work for pretty much anything rock.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

as typical, I typed this out, but didn't finish 100%. I got distracted & then busy. Now, the conversation has moved on (typically - usually I just delete), but here goes...



Seventh Son said:


> This is my current setup.
> View attachment 57363
> View attachment 57364
> 
> The amp is raised on the end table, facing the window and a corner with a large bookcase, which allow sound to pass through and absorb it, while also bouncing reflections past the microphone due to angle of the amp. I don't know if there's a better way. This seemed like a reasonable setup to me.


try putting the amp on the far end of the hallway, & then try different distances.

You can also try turning the amp 90º to clockwise towards the wall, then mic from the wall side. You'll get some wall reflection if you play w/ small distances.

I think you're having trouble wrapping your mind around (or dismissing) the inherent limitations of the SM57. Also, there's a big difference between perceived room sound & actual sound in the room, that a capturing device will gather.

It's like when you are in a room looking at things. Then, you think, hey, I'm going to take a picture. Then, in the picture, you notice clutter, mess, etc., that your eyes filtered out, because they are focused on a particular subject in a particular way.

The same w/ sound & recording. Your hearing works hard to filter (focus) on certain tones. The recording device does not discriminate &/or adjust.

You must be cognizant of that.

You like the high-end push of the SM57, but, if you used a more mellow mic, you could crank the fizz in the room & get the same sound as you are getting by dialing it down, & you'll also get a thicker midrange.

Try turning up your midrange a notch or 2, when you record (w/ the SM57)


----------



## Dogs of Doom

_ripper_ said:


> @Dogs of Doom Yeah, I dont want to mess with my JMP-1 for the exact same reason. I've had it for years too and want to keep it stock!
> 
> @Seventh Son I think the 'cap edge' mic position is touted so much because it's an acceptable compromise or, at least, a decent starting point. I also think that when we start to get too scientific about recording guitar sound we run the risk of losing sight of the big picture.


I think it depends on what your goals are. I tend to like to work hard & figure things out, then, just forget about it when performing. The hard work is done, now I play & don't worry about it.

There can be problems either way, because sometimes it's hard to forget the technical, just like when you're playing. 

If you will always be doing your own engineering/mixing, then I guess you better educate yourself some. If not, then you only need to learn enough to be dangerous.

I think the idea of compromise is always there. You can always do technically better, but, at what cost & where does the pendulum start swinging in the other direction, where it may be perfect, but not for this project.

I like the sounds you've posted. They work for what you've done. Put that gear & recording process in someone else' hands & they might not jive w/ it at all. That's ok, like you say, it's your tone, for your music, not theirs, for theirs...

IDK if you're familiar w/ Black Sabbath's Eternal Idol? Great album, terrible recording & production. Still, I'd rather the music be good, than the production. They did a remaster, that cleaned it up a little bit. I think the poor mastered version still rocks more...




Bob Daisley joined ranks & wrote much of the lyrics & played bass. Geezer wrote much of the earlier (& later) lyrics, so, it's not unusual for the bass guy to write them for the band (& Ozzy).


----------



## Seventh Son

I got some really great results today. First, to get rid of the muffled sound, I moved the mic to the center of the speaker, on-axis, right on the grille. The center position is really the only one that has that energy and bite, and where individual notes have some sparkle. After trying a couple different EQ settings on the amp, I found that Dave's JMP-1 settings of Bass, Middle, Treble all on 10, Presence on 2 worked great and gave me some nice thick tone without too much fizz. It sounded very Maiden. Other settings that sounded good in the room also worked pretty well with the center position.


----------



## Seventh Son

I dared to record a quick snippet this morning with my amp on 3 (tolerable) and 8 (super loud). Basically, on 8 (which is where the power amp kicks in on my DSL15C) the fizz was completely gone and I got exactly the tones I want with standard mic placement, such as cap edge. So, volume really is the key to getting rid of the fizz.


----------



## WellBurnTheSky

Always the case with Marshalls


----------



## BftGibson

Seventh Son said:


> I dared to record a quick snippet this morning with my amp on 3 (tolerable) and 8 (super loud). Basically, on 8 (which is where the power amp kicks in on my DSL15C) the fizz was completely gone and I got exactly the tones I want with standard mic placement, such as cap edge. So, volume really is the key to getting rid of the fizz.


Volume is def the answer !! CD last year.. plop my stack right in the middle of the studio..head facing me..cabs firing away..my studio guy ..does 3 things,,1) takes my board 2) dimes my master 3) turns my gain down


----------



## Seventh Son

Hey guys! I've finally figured it all out. Wow! I had no idea that was the case, but I was using too much gain. I know that you should use less gain than normal for recording, so instead of setting gain at 4 or 5, I used to set it on 2. Turns out, even that was too much, since the DSL15C has so much gain on tap. I ended up setting it somewhere around 1.5. That removed the fizz, brought out the mids, added some punch, and the rest was a piece of cake. The Trooper tone is very mid-heavy, and there's almost nothing below 300Hz, so my settings were this.
Bass 3
Middle 8
Treble 3
Presence 3
Gain ca. 1.8
With the gain, it was literally a matter of millimeters; you have to go very gently and dial it in by ear. Using headphones also helped, as it hypes the gain to where it sounds nice and prevents you from dialing in too much.
I recorded with the mic placed straight pointing at the dust cap edge, ca. one inch off the grille, since I didn't need the proximity effect, as the Trooper tone is very boxy and tight. Anyway, even without any post-processing, the raw tracks sounded almost just like the original. I added a LPF at 80Hz and a HPF at 10,000Hz, but mostly, just in case.

And now, I'm off to do my victory lap. Thank you all for contributing to this crazy journey of me trying to figure out what I was doing wrong, while I was chasing my own tail.


----------



## BftGibson

gain down volume up, is how my DSL's respond best..never got gain above 4 in studio. Going in Tuesday finally after a year & might just be a jtm50 & jmp50 2204 situation this go round.


----------



## Seventh Son

BftGibson said:


> gain down volume up, is how my DSL's respond best..never got gain above 4 in studio. Going in Tuesday finally after a year & might just be a jtm50 & jmp50 2204 situation this go round.


Yeah, it's incredible how little gain is needed for recording. I hope we can pass this information on to our other fellow recordists here to speed up their learning curve.


----------



## Seventh Son

Piggybacking on my previous post, I wanted to add that I concluded today that although the problem with my recordings was partly caused by using too much gain on my DSL15C, the issue had more to do with the Vintage 30 in the DSL15C and with me not EQ-ing the amp to its strengths. Compared to the G12T-75 in my DSL20CR, the Vintage 30 is much fizzier in the top-end, at least at the volumes I was recording. I have also noticed a huge difference in the low mids between the two speakers. Part of the G12T-75's sound has that knocking low-end that you hear coming out of the back of an open cab, whereas the Vintage 30 somehow does not push those frequencies forward. Below is a clip that demonstrates that. Same amp, same settings, different speakers. No wonder I thought my recordings with the Vintage 30 sounded fizzy.

Paradoxically, the G12T-75 sounds more complete on its own, records real well on low volumes, and has that fullness and roar that you hear when the power amp kicks in, but in the mix, it's almost too aggressive, while the Vintage 30 sounds much warmer and just nice and smooth when listening through headphones. It sounds gorgeous through headphones.


----------



## Seventh Son

Hey guys! Just wanted to give you an update on my home recording adventure. I've finally solved all my issues with thin and fizzy tone on recordings. Turns out, the problem was the source. More specifically, the amp wasn't loud enough, so it sounded fizzy, which was impossible to get rid of with mic placement alone.

After I had set the amp to a decent volume (Volume = 3) to get rid of the fizz, I went into the room where the amp was, listened, and also discovered that I was not using enough gain to saturate the tone and give it the needed sparkle. Once that was done, EQ-ing was a breeze, where pretty much any standard settings worked great. I ended up with the following settings on my DSL15C with a Celestion Vintage 30.
Bass 7
Middle 5
Treble 5
Presence 2
Gain 5
Mic placement was on-axis, midway between center and edge of speaker, an inch off the grille. It sounded great.


----------



## _ripper_

Hey guys!

I made an interesting discovery which may be of use for those of you interested in recording - specifically in recording silently. I have an inexpensive attenuator that I often use when playing, its a Jettenuator clone. It also has the ability to be used as a load box, in conjunction with IRs for speaker emulation. All conventional wisdom says to use the more expensive reactive load boxes for recording, as they simulate the effect of the variable impedance a real speaker has when connected to the amp. While I wont disagree that there is a difference in feel when I played though my (resistive) loadbox vs through the amp, what I realized is that if you happen to have IR's that have been made though a tube poweramp, you have the tonal effect on the impedance curve (the poweramp - cab interaction) as part of the capture process.

The proof is in the pudding, so first here's a clip of the amp mic'ed (no attenuator connected of course): 

And here's a clip of the same amp on the same settings, played silently with a loadbox and through an IR: 

Bear in mind that the actual cab is a Marshall 1936V recorded with an SM7b, and the IR is of a Mesa 4x12 w/V30s, recorded through the power section of a Single Rectifier with an SM7b. A member here @Michael Roe is the creator. All the other settings on the clip are the same for both guitars.

So, what do you think? How do they compare? Personally, I'm quite happy with the IR version. Recording silently also gives me the opportunity to get some work done at night and finally move forward with getting our album done.

Cheers,
ripper


----------



## Seventh Son

_ripper_ said:


> Hey guys!
> 
> I made an interesting discovery which may be of use for those of you interested in recording - specifically in recording silently. I have an inexpensive attenuator that I often use when playing, its a Jettenuator clone. It also has the ability to be used as a load box, in conjunction with IRs for speaker emulation. All conventional wisdom says to use the more expensive reactive load boxes for recording, as they simulate the effect of the variable impedance a real speaker has when connected to the amp. While I wont disagree that there is a difference in feel when I played though my (resistive) loadbox vs through the amp, what I realized is that if you happen to have IR's that have been made though a tube poweramp, you have the tonal effect on the impedance curve (the poweramp - cab interaction) as part of the capture process.
> 
> The proof is in the pudding, so first here's a clip of the amp mic'ed (no attenuator connected of course):
> 
> And here's a clip of the same amp on the same settings, played silently with a loadbox and through an IR:
> 
> Bear in mind that the actual cab is a Marshall 1936V recorded with an SM7b, and the IR is of a Mesa 4x12 w/V30s, recorded through the power section of a Single Rectifier with an SM7b. A member here @Michael Roe is the creator. All the other settings on the clip are the same for both guitars.
> 
> So, what do you think? How do they compare? Personally, I'm quite happy with the IR version. Recording silently also gives me the opportunity to get some work done at night and finally move forward with getting our album done.
> 
> Cheers,
> ripper



If I hadn't heard both in an A/B comparison, I would have liked either equally. Personally, I think the louder version has a little more meat and bite, but the difference is so small as to be mostly inconsequential, unless you're comparing them back to back, where most people will prefer one or the other, just because they have to pick the one they like.


----------



## Michael Roe

Check out this thread to hear a bunch more IRs. I used the SS IRs because I was capturing the power section of the DSL with a load box.
http://www.marshallforum.com/threads/impulse-responses.107890/#post-1837020


----------



## _ripper_

Seventh Son said:


> If I hadn't heard both in an A/B comparison, I would have liked either equally. Personally, I think the louder version has a little more meat and bite, but the difference is so small as to be mostly inconsequential, unless you're comparing them back to back, where most people will prefer one or the other, just because they have to pick the one they like.




Cheers, thanks for listening. I've actually gone on and made IRs of my own cab and mics, so basically what I'm getting now is the tone from my own setup, except that instead of the walls shaking, it's completely silent in the room.

Here's a recent clip that I'm very happy with:


----------



## Seventh Son

Hey guys! Just wanted to report that I've figured out what was causing my issues with fizzy, thin tone on recordings. I solved the problem by switching my DSL15C to triode. Apparently, running the amp in pentode made it almost impossible to overdrive the power tubes, as the volume would have to be set above 8 to get any power tube involvement. Setting the amp to triode allowed me to get power amp distortion with volume set as low as 3. It took care of all the problems I was having, and I was easily able to dial in _and record _the tone from "The Trooper" that I've been chasing for a while.


----------



## BanditPanda

Let's hear it buster.
BP


----------



## Derek S

EDIT: Solved my issue, disregard!


----------



## Seventh Son

BanditPanda said:


> Let's hear it buster.
> BP


Here's a quick sample of the end product of my long (recorded) tone quest. I love the way my DSL15C sounds on this recording. At last, the fizz is gone, and there's a strong and organic midrange that sounds just right. I couldn't be happier with the result. This is all guitar straight into the amp, hooked up to an MX112R extension cab with a Vintage 30, no in-the-box postprocessing whatsoever. SM57 straight at cap-meets-cone, on the grille.
Bass 2
Middle 7
Treble 2
Presence 3
Gain 3
Volume 3
Tone shift: Out
Pentode/Triode: Triode


----------



## BanditPanda

Yes by jove I think you've got it.! A bit dry for my tastes but definitely a fine sound.
Thanks for the clip.
BP


----------



## lordquilton

Alright, maybe you guys can sort me out.
My interface (Roland Quad Capture) or my DAW (Sonar) doesn't seem to pan properly any more.
I will start a new project, set the input on an audio track to left input (for example) on the Quad Capture and record something.
(All the tracks and busses are by default set to stereo interleave when I start a new track)

So I have a single mono waveform now, and when I play it back it doesn't pan properly. Meaning if I pan hard left or right it just gets a little quieter, but still seems to be coming up the middle of the stereo field. 
So as far as I can tell the DAW is running stereo, the mono button on the interface isn't on, but it sure sounds like I'm in mono.
I uninstalled/reinstalled the interface drivers, but the behavior persists.

I'm starting to suspect something is screwy with the hardware of the Quad Capture, but other than this particular issue it seems to working flawlessly - no noise, crackles, etc.

Any ideas?


----------



## Sacalait

This is a JVM205H on a client's song. I pretty much emulated the ZZ dude. It's some light/medium crunch using the Clean/Crunch/Orange and Red channels on the JVM. I'm happy with how it sounds. Straight up old-school Marshall!


----------



## Del Rei

Hey, guys.
This is my Friedman Dirty Shirley Pedal...


----------



## steveb63

Del Rei said:


> Hey, guys.
> This is my Friedman Dirty Shirley Pedal...



Sounds great! I'm sure it would look good on my pedalboard next to the BE-OD!

Seriously, quality sound imo


----------



## SmokeyDopey

****WARNING - Very pronounced volume differences between clips below (lower your volume for the Soundcloud clip)****

I was going through some old files and found this.
Demo of what you can do with a console besides just "mix". A lot of people push their consoles to get a little more excitement out of certain tracks, or whole mixes. Here is a demonstration of a slide guitar track from a song called "Lost Case" by 42 Decibel.

The first half is just the guitar cab that was mic'd with a 57. The 2nd half is that same track but passed though 2 or 3 daisy chained channels of a '70s Yamaha PM2000 mixing console. That thing has a ton of iron in it...



And here it is in context


----------



## Exojam

I apologize if there is a list already in this thread but what programs are you folks using for making your recording’s?

Thanks.


----------



## Del Rei

steveb63 said:


> Sounds great! I'm sure it would look good on my pedalboard next to the BE-OD!
> Seriously, quality sound imo



Thanks man! Cant go wrong with Friedman gear! 




SmokeyDopey said:


> ****WARNING - Very pronounced volume differences between clips below (lower your volume for the Soundcloud clip)****
> 
> I was going through some old files and found this.
> Demo of what you can do with a console besides just "mix". A lot of people push their consoles to get a little more excitement out of certain tracks, or whole mixes. Here is a demonstration of a slide guitar track from a song called "Lost Case" by 42 Decibel.
> The first half is just the guitar cab that was mic'd with a 57. The 2nd half is that same track but passed though 2 or 3 daisy chained channels of a '70s Yamaha PM2000 mixing console. That thing has a ton of iron in it...
> 
> And here it is in context




I like it man. Great job!!



Exojam said:


> I apologize if there is a list already in this thread but what programs are you folks using for making your recording’s?
> Thanks.


Raper....


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Exojam said:


> I apologize if there is a list already in this thread but what programs are you folks using for making your recording’s?
> 
> Thanks.





Del Rei said:


> Raper....


reaper? ...

I use Adobe Audition...


----------



## steveb63

Exojam said:


> I apologize if there is a list already in this thread but what programs are you folks using for making your recording’s?
> 
> Thanks.


Reaper in my house


----------



## Del Rei

Dogs of Doom said:


> reaper? ...
> I use Adobe Audition...



Yeah. Reaper, sorry for the wrong name!


----------



## Del Rei

Recorded this fast one today...
Friedman Dirty Shirley Mini + Les Paul.


----------



## 4Horseman

*edit-problem solved


----------



## Filipe Soares

Just a test, the idea was to record 3 guitars 

2x SM57 (Fredman) routed to a mixing console and recorded in mono
Jet City Isocab (Celestion V30)
Vantage Les Paul (EMG 81) for both sides, panned 70% for each side
ESP 400S (SD Fury) in the middle, about 8db lower
5150iii 50W head, red channel for the LP, blue for the strat. in between the head and the isocab there's a weber mass lite 100.

no post EQ, no post compression. just a simple track to test the tone.


----------



## Filipe Soares

my try on Running Wild - Under Jolly Roger


----------



## SmokeyDopey

Seventh Son said:


> Here's an interesting link explaining exactly, down to the last detail, how the X-Y technique works.
> http://www.audiotechnology.com/PDF/TUTORIALS/AT38_Guitar_Amp_mic_technique.pdf
> 
> To stay inside the radius of the speaker, make sure to keep the two mics closer than 6" from the dust cap if you're recording a 12" speaker. It sounds that this would be suited only for recording with two different mics (either a dynamic and a condenser, as demonstrated in the article, or two different dynamics, such as Kevin Shirley's preference for an SM57 and an M201). You could also try this with one mic, as positioning the mic that way will aim to capture the top end and the bottom end with a single mic.



We finally released one of the songs we were working on at that time when I tried out this technique:



SmokeyDopey said:


> I tried it! With a 57 and a 421. Not bad at all! Pretty balanced sound overall.
> But I was a little farther back. Not an inch away, more like 8 or 10 inches away (about 30 cm). Less bass (no need to filter out stuff), and pretty mid present. Plus a room mic several feet away (maybe 2 meters).



The rhythm guitars are close mic'd, but we recorded the solo with that X-Y technique (around min 2:50 the solo fades in). JCM 800 1959 into a 4x12 with 75s and WGS Vet30s. Boosted, channels jumpered, and all controls maxed except presence and bass. 





(I already posted this in another thread, but I remembered that the solo was recorded this way, so I wanted to share the end result)


----------



## Seventh Son

SmokeyDopey said:


> We finally released one of the songs we were working on at that time when I tried out this technique:
> 
> 
> 
> The rhythm guitars are close mic'd, but we recorded the solo with that X-Y technique (around min 2:50 the solo fades in). JCM 800 1959 into a 4x12 with 75s and WGS Vet30s. Boosted, channels jumpered, and all controls maxed except presence and bass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (I already posted this in another thread, but I remembered that the solo was recorded this way, so I wanted to share the end result)



That sounds great. The rhythm guitars sound very crunchy and full bodied, the body definitely due to close-miking. After lots and lots of experimentation, I have settled on a single SM57. The placement of my choice is standard textbook: An SM57 an inch away from the grille, pointed directly at where the cap and cone meet. What is interesting is that that is not only the best placement in practice, but also a theoretical case can and has been made that this is the best placement.

Mark Mynett, author of _Metal Music Manual_, walks us though frequency graphs of three placements—center, half-on/half-off, and cone—and points to frequency imbalances that occur with the center and cone placements, whereas the half-on/half-off position yields the smoothest, most natural high frequency roll-off of the three positions, and the best overall balance of frequencies. The relevant section in the book is available at the free Google preview of the book at https://books.google.com/books?id=dTslDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false.

He also notes that close-miking is definitely the way to go. Describing his analysis of different distances from the grille, he recommends a 1-inch distance, noting that the he noticed a small degree of cloudiness from the on-grille position. Personally, I've tried on-grille placement and really liked it for the lower-mid girth and a certain pumping quality in that frequency range. Placing the mic 1 inch from the grille also yielded very similar results, but with a bit less girth in the lower mids. but that was on a 1x12" combo. I suspect that with a 4x12", placing the mic 1 inch from the grille is probably a good insurance policy against the potential cloudiness that he mentions to have noticed from on-grille placements.

Given what I now know, I question Kevin Shirley's wisdom in using the X-Y technique not only about 6 inches from the grille, but also pointed at the cone. Maybe that explains the muddiness I have noticed in Maiden's post-2000 productions with Kevin Shirley as a producer.


----------



## WellBurnTheSky

The book you're mentioning looks a lot like a "one size fits all" recipe. While from experience, there's no such thing as a magic bullet in audio. I've seen guys use seemingly weird miking techniques and get unbelievable results with them. And conversely, others use top-notch mikes and "proper" techniques to get blah tones.
The only good answer is: it depends. On the source, the mike(s), the room, the tones you want to achieve, the context, and many other parameters. 
Recommended techniques such as "get a 57 and aim it at the cone's edge, about 1 inch from the grill" only is a starting point, nothing more. If it's too dark, get the mike closer to the cap. If it's too boomy, move it away from the grill (to decrease proximity effect). If it's too bright, move it away from the center. Try angling it. Maybe try a different mike.
The only good advice I've ever heard (and conversely, been able to give to interns) is: use your ears and your brain.


----------



## Filipe Soares

WellBurnTheSky said:


> The book you're mentioning looks a lot like a "one size fits all" recipe. While from experience, there's no such thing as a magic bullet in audio. I've seen guys use seemingly weird miking techniques and get unbelievable results with them. And conversely, others use top-notch mikes and "proper" techniques to get blah tones.
> The only good answer is: it depends. On the source, the mike(s), the room, the tones you want to achieve, the context, and many other parameters.
> Recommended techniques such as "get a 57 and aim it at the cone's edge, about 1 inch from the grill" only is a starting point, nothing more. If it's too dark, get the mike closer to the cap. If it's too boomy, move it away from the grill (to decrease proximity effect). If it's too bright, move it away from the center. Try angling it. Maybe try a different mike.
> The only good advice I've ever heard (and conversely, been able to give to interns) is: use your ears and your brain.



Perfect! And I must add: if you're a lazy SOB put 2 SM57 in 45 degrees angle and blend them as you like in your mixer. It might save you a few trips to the cab if you're in a hurry.


----------



## Filipe Soares

now the finished product Under Jolly Roger cover from Running Wild.


----------



## Seventh Son

Filipe Soares said:


> now the finished product Under Jolly Roger cover from Running Wild.



I only listened to this on my studio headphones, so take this for what it's worth. The guitars have a pretty solid midrange, but sound a bit airy and in the background. I presume that was intentional.


----------



## Filipe Soares

Seventh Son said:


> I only listened to this on my studio headphones, so take this for what it's worth. The guitars have a pretty solid midrange, but sound a bit airy and in the background. I presume that was intentional.


I´ve tried to keep with the vibe of the original song, and I´ve recorded two basses in this track, one regular and one picolo (with lot´s of drive). tomorrow I´ll check this mix in different sources and see what´s like. thanks for listening man.


----------



## Seventh Son

WellBurnTheSky said:


> The book you're mentioning looks a lot like a "one size fits all" recipe. While from experience, there's no such thing as a magic bullet in audio. I've seen guys use seemingly weird miking techniques and get unbelievable results with them. And conversely, others use top-notch mikes and "proper" techniques to get blah tones.
> The only good answer is: it depends. On the source, the mike(s), the room, the tones you want to achieve, the context, and many other parameters.
> Recommended techniques such as "get a 57 and aim it at the cone's edge, about 1 inch from the grill" only is a starting point, nothing more. If it's too dark, get the mike closer to the cap. If it's too boomy, move it away from the grill (to decrease proximity effect). If it's too bright, move it away from the center. Try angling it. Maybe try a different mike.
> The only good advice I've ever heard (and conversely, been able to give to interns) is: use your ears and your brain.


I disagree, but allow me to explain why. If you look at the graphs the author of the book provided, he makes a very solid case for the half-on/half-off (i.e., cap edge) position. In the graphs comparing the center, cap edge, and cone positions, there is, as expected, a strong spike in the fizz area in the center position; a natural roll-off of the high frequencies in the cap edge position, and attenuation in the treble area, with a simultaneous spike in high frequencies in the cone position. The latter provides evidence for the occurrence of a high-frequency node in the cone position.

The reason I side with the book author on the matter of mic placement is that he relies on what we know about speakers, frequency radiation from the cone, and other physical properties that determine how something sounds at a speaker and then shows that the results from different microphone placements are fairly predictable using our theoretical knowledge available to us so far.

I think that the "whatever works is good" philosophy can be self-defeating when we have convincing data to support certain conclusions and rule out others as unfeasible.


----------



## Seventh Son

On a test recording I did today, I noticed something interesting again. My heavy guitars sound a bit distorted, with notes played on the neck pickup in the upper register sounding a bit like an old video game, which has the side effect of accentuating the fizzy frequencies in the spectrum. My gain staging is probably not the issue. My recording levels are around -18dB and nothing in the DAW is peaking or in the red.

Now, I know many of you will say, Lower gain on your amp, and I've tried that, of course, with the result that with less gain, the guitars sounded lackluster, and with more gain, they sounded distorted and fizzy. It seems that there is no way to get it so it's "just right." Any thoughts?


----------



## WellBurnTheSky

Seventh Son said:


> I disagree, but allow me to explain why. If you look at the graphs the author of the book provided, he makes a very solid case for the half-on/half-off (i.e., cap edge) position. In the graphs comparing the center, cap edge, and cone positions, there is, as expected, a strong spike in the fizz area in the center position; a natural roll-off of the high frequencies in the cap edge position, and attenuation in the treble area, with a simultaneous spike in high frequencies in the cone position. The latter provides evidence for the occurrence of a high-frequency node in the cone position.
> 
> The reason I side with the book author on the matter of mic placement is that he relies on what we know about speakers, frequency radiation from the cone, and other physical properties that determine how something sounds at a speaker and then shows that the results from different microphone placements are fairly predictable using our theoretical knowledge available to us so far.
> 
> I think that the "whatever works is good" philosophy can be self-defeating when we have convincing data to support certain conclusions and rule out others as unfeasible.


Take it this way: I've been making a living working with mikes and speakers for the last 25 years (so, all my adult life), working as a guitarist and live sound engineer (did some studio work too), and spent the last 10 years working very often as the house engineer in a pretty big venue, either engineering or babysitting other engineers (2 weeks ago I worked with one who has run one of the biggest jazz festivals in the world and recorded with artists such as Keith Jarrett, for example). And what do engineers when they meet ? They talk shop. I make a point of asking the guys I babysit about their techniques, especially if they use something unusual.
And the one thing we ALL agree on, again, is that there's no universal recipe, be it for a good mix or a good recording. Again, the only rule is: use your ears, your brain, and your knowledge of mics and pickup patterns to get the tone you're shooting for. And it all starts at th source (what the mic's listening to), anyway.

An example that goes directly against what you're stating is the infamous "Fredman array", that uses 2 SM57s in coincident array shooting straight at the center of the cone (with one straight and the other angled). It's been used A LOT on many modern recordings (most famously on the In Flames records, that have absolutely crushing guitar tones).

It's described here:


Also here (though this one uses a 421 as the 2nd mic):
https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/making-modern-metal-part-2

Again, according to your source, this shouldn't work. Except it does. And very well actually.
Yet, it does work in one context, shooting for a particular tone, and won't work for other tones, in other contexts. And using that technique in other situations might not work at all. Even to the point of being detrimental. So, again: use your ears and your brain.

To me, the best way of learning how to mike YOUR gear is to use a looper: put a riff on repeat, put on your headphones, and move the mic around, listening to how it sounds (or even best, record it, taking notes). When you find a mic position that works for you and what you want to achieve, write it down and mark it down on the cab (using some electrical tape to mark the position on the cab always work). Rinse and repeat.

There's no shortcut to learning this stuff, and again, any technique will only be a starting point, and not some holy gospel that should be used blindly and to the exclusion of anything else. Which is the reason why, in audio engineering, technical knowledge (which you end up quickly understanding that what you don't know is much bigger that the one you do know) is only half he battle. Experience is the other half, and there's no shortcut for amassing it.


----------



## WellBurnTheSky

Another example: last Monday, I engineered for Reb Beach, of Winger, Dokken, Alice Cooper and Whitesnake fame (he also was using my amp and cab as provided backline). The mic used for him was a Sennheiser e906. I set it up almost dead center the one of the G12Ms in the cab. EXCEPT the 906 has a 3-way switch, and I set it up for "hi cut" (it's more of a high shelf actually). On the desk, I set the HPF pretty high (160Hz-ish) and high-shelved the top end (at around 5k) by 3-4dB or so.
The result ? A pretty cutting tone that sat pretty well in the mix, with palm-mutes being prominent while not being overbearing (I always set the HPF by ear, starting at 100Hz or so for distorted guitars). And a top end that was smooth and pleasing while not being unbearably bright. The band manager even commented on how he liked my mix.
Not tooting my own horn here btw, just giving an example of how using the gear you have and using your ears gets you to use settings and mic positions that aren't textbook but end up working very well for the source and the mix.
Again, in audio, as for using mics and dialing in tones, there's no absolutes and no universal recipe: start with the source, and make your way from there, moving the mic around, then using processing to have it work in the mix. So, once again, use your ears and your brain. You won't get any better advice than this.


----------



## Seventh Son

WellBurnTheSky said:


> Take it this way: I've been making a living working with mikes and speakers for the last 25 years (so, all my adult life), working as a guitarist and live sound engineer (did some studio work too), and spent the last 10 years working very often as the house engineer in a pretty big venue, either engineering or babysitting other engineers (2 weeks ago I worked with one who has run one of the biggest jazz festivals in the world and recorded with artists such as Keith Jarrett, for example). And what do engineers when they meet ? They talk shop. I make a point of asking the guys I babysit about their techniques, especially if they use something unusual.
> And the one thing we ALL agree on, again, is that there's no universal recipe, be it for a good mix or a good recording. Again, the only rule is: use your ears, your brain, and your knowledge of mics and pickup patterns to get the tone you're shooting for. And it all starts at th source (what the mic's listening to), anyway.
> 
> An example that goes directly against what you're stating is the infamous "Fredman array", that uses 2 SM57s in coincident array shooting straight at the center of the cone (with one straight and the other angled). It's been used A LOT on many modern recordings (most famously on the In Flames records, that have absolutely crushing guitar tones).
> 
> It's described here:
> 
> 
> Also here (though this one uses a 421 as the 2nd mic):
> https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/making-modern-metal-part-2
> 
> Again, according to your source, this shouldn't work. Except it does. And very well actually.
> Yet, it does work in one context, shooting for a particular tone, and won't work for other tones, in other contexts. And using that technique in other situations might not work at all. Even to the point of being detrimental. So, again: use your ears and your brain.
> 
> To me, the best way of learning how to mike YOUR gear is to use a looper: put a riff on repeat, put on your headphones, and move the mic around, listening to how it sounds (or even best, record it, taking notes). When you find a mic position that works for you and what you want to achieve, write it down and mark it down on the cab (using some electrical tape to mark the position on the cab always work). Rinse and repeat.
> 
> There's no shortcut to learning this stuff, and again, any technique will only be a starting point, and not some holy gospel that should be used blindly and to the exclusion of anything else. Which is the reason why, in audio engineering, technical knowledge (which you end up quickly understanding that what you don't know is much bigger that the one you do know) is only half he battle. Experience is the other half, and there's no shortcut for amassing it.



Just for the record and for anyone reading this, one quick addendum. The SoundOnSound article you linked to above was written by Mark Mynett, the very author of the book "Metal Music Manual" that I referenced in my previous post. Thus the article does not contradict what he preaches in the book, but supports it. In the book, he goes into various alternate mic placements, including the popular Fredman technique. But I am sure you are aware that the book and article are by the same author.

Now onto the substance of what you said. I can't disagree with anything you said, except that I would add the following two qualifiers. First, your approach to miking amps is not a drastic departure from the textbook approaches. For example, high-passing guitars at 100Hz may sound radical, unless you consider that the TS-9, a standard pedal in a typical modern metal rig, actually high-passes the signal at around 700Hz, according to a poster on this website. Second, rather than breaking the mold, it could be argued that the Fredman technique just does more of the standard stuff by placing not one but two SM57s near the cap edge. As for the technique itself, I never found it to be sufficiently worth dealing with extra gear or tracks or both, or dealing with the inevitable phase issues. Plenty of legendary recordings have been done with just one SM57. As you correctly stressed, source is key. In my opinion, adding more mics can improve pickup, but only to the extent that you are limited by the source material in what you can capture with additional mics.


----------



## Filipe Soares

I actually like 2 mics , fredman or not. In my case, I record at home with an isocab. I placed my mics a long time ago, to my taste and without much phasing issues. One bright mic, one dark. both goes to my console where I blend them to my tast and record it mono. That's my personal workflow, I'm not saying that's the only way, and it's not perfect for everyone. It suits my needs because I have some degree of flexibility on my mixing console and I don't have to fiddle a lot to get a good tone.

Lately, due laziness, I'm recording my weber mass line out straight to my interface and using IRs. I'm doind this, also, because I want to prove if I really need to mic my stuff or if I'm good with IRs.

Personally, I love the magic and perks of mic placement.


----------



## WellBurnTheSky

Seventh Son said:


> Just for the record and for anyone reading this, one quick addendum. The SoundOnSound article you linked to above was written by Mark Mynett, the very author of the book "Metal Music Manual" that I referenced in my previous post. Thus the article does not contradict what he preaches in the book, but supports it. In the book, he goes into various alternate mic placements, including the popular Fredman technique. But I am sure you are aware that the book and article are by the same author.
> 
> Now onto the substance of what you said. I can't disagree with anything you said, except that I would add the following two qualifiers. First, your approach to miking amps is not a drastic departure from the textbook approaches. For example, high-passing guitars at 100Hz may sound radical, unless you consider that the TS-9, a standard pedal in a typical modern metal rig, actually high-passes the signal at around 700Hz, according to a poster on this website. Second, rather than breaking the mold, it could be argued that the Fredman technique just does more of the standard stuff by placing not one but two SM57s near the cap edge. As for the technique itself, I never found it to be sufficiently worth dealing with extra gear or tracks or both, or dealing with the inevitable phase issues. Plenty of legendary recordings have been done with just one SM57. As you correctly stressed, source is key. In my opinion, adding more mics can improve pickup, but only to the extent that you are limited by the source material in what you can capture with additional mics.


Several issues with your reasoning.
First of all, the "usual" application of the Fredman technique is putting the mics dead center, not near cap edge.

Second, there's NO HPF @700Hz in the TS schematic per se, it's a gross oversimplification. There indeed is a HPF filter at around 700Hz, but it's in the feedback loop of the 1st half of the op-amp, ie in the clipping circuit. The aim being to distort high mids and high end, but not lows and low-mids, so as to retain definition and avoid a muddy low-end (it also provides the signature high mids bump of the circuit). But the TS doesn't high-pass the whole signal at 700Hz. HUGE difference. That would make it a pretty extreme treble booster, which it isn't. I'll point you to this article analysing the TS schematic:
https://www.electrosmash.com/tube-screamer-analysis

Also, God knows I LOVE the 57, to me it's one of the best mics ever designed, because it can do so many things. Even some you wouldn't suspect, such as hi-hats. And it for sure is part of the chain in several tones I love (though it could be argued there's also a myriad stellar tones achieved without a 57). BUT sometimes using a 57, or aiming it at the cap's edge won't work for the tone you're trying to achieve. Maybe moving it around will, or maybe using another mic will get you closer to your aim. But in the long run adhering blindly to a "recipe" is a surefire path to failure. Knowing why you do things and being flexible will get you much farther.
Again, it comes down to a simple idea: use your ears and your brain.


----------



## Seventh Son

WellBurnTheSky said:


> Several issues with your reasoning.
> First of all, the "usual" application of the Fredman technique is putting the mics dead center, not near cap edge.
> 
> Second, there's NO HPF @700Hz in the TS schematic per se, it's a gross oversimplification. There indeed is a HPF filter at around 700Hz, but it's in the feedback loop of the 1st half of the op-amp, ie in the clipping circuit. The aim being to distort high mids and high end, but not lows and low-mids, so as to retain definition and avoid a muddy low-end (it also provides the signature high mids bump of the circuit). But the TS doesn't high-pass the whole signal at 700Hz. HUGE difference. That would make it a pretty extreme treble booster, which it isn't. I'll point you to this article analysing the TS schematic:
> https://www.electrosmash.com/tube-screamer-analysis
> 
> Also, God knows I LOVE the 57, to me it's one of the best mics ever designed, because it can do so many things. Even some you wouldn't suspect, such as hi-hats. And it for sure is part of the chain in several tones I love (though it could be argued there's also a myriad stellar tones achieved without a 57). BUT sometimes using a 57, or aiming it at the cap's edge won't work for the tone you're trying to achieve. Maybe moving it around will, or maybe using another mic will get you closer to your aim. But in the long run adhering blindly to a "recipe" is a surefire path to failure. Knowing why you do things and being flexible will get you much farther.
> Again, it comes down to a simple idea: use your ears and your brain.


That makes sense about the TS-9. I was referring to another poster on this website, who in a recent post referred to the "complex circuit" of HPFs that employs a HPF at around 700Hz. Since I can't claim to know much about the technical side of the TS-9, your post is very helpful in that it elaborates on what the circuit roughly does.

Following your post, I tried approaching things a little differently based on your logic. Keeping things loud and making sure volumes are matched, I played my DSL20CR along isolated tracks from _Piece of Mind_ as well as the original CD album, and tweaked the knobs until I had a reasonably close match in the room. Once that was done, I proceeded to find a mic placement that would capture that, steering clear of any prescribed formulas. The placement I settled on was just outside the dust cap edge, out of the way of the stream of super-high-end and in a region where the mids are very strong, but that's not too far out to lose the critical brightness required for the tone. In chasing the target tone, I also recognized that the _Piece of Mind_ tone is mostly mids, but very bright, upper mids. That was also the key to getting the thin E, B, and G strings to sound nice and thick. I ended up with these very bright, mid-heavy settings.

Bass 2
Middle 9
Treble 2
Presence 10
Gain 3

I have had some success before, with not too different settings, actually, but my mistake was miking on the dust cap edge, which required turning the Presence control down a lot to get rid of the fizz. That took care of the fizz, but also made the tone pretty muffled in the room, and just muffled enough on the recording to suggest that something isn't quite right. The settings above finally did the trick beyond doubt.

My ears have confirmed for me that the settings are good, but looking at the numbers (mids around 9!), it amazes me just how much mids there is in classic heavy metal to get those biting tones, and there's almost no bass in them, since the bottom end needs to be very tight. I can't believe how far we have moved from those practices. It honestly makes me feel sorry for modern metal producers like Mark Mynett, who have the challenge of working with bands that use a ton of bass and scoop the mids for that chugging, palm-muted sound on guitars. I can't even begin to imagine the challenges of dealing with too much bass, proximity effect, volume spikes on transients and palm-mutes, scooped tones that get buried in the mix, etc., all at the same time. That must be a very difficult job to make modern metal albums sound modern and heavy at the same time.

I checked out the band, Damnation's Hammer, that Mark Mynett produced, as detailed in the article you referenced above. The final result wasn't too bad, but you can still tell that the snare is triggered, and there are many other aspects of the production that pale in comparison to the '80s and early '90s productions.


----------



## WellBurnTheSky

Great !
As for the TS-9, yeah, there's lots of misconceptions about that pedal, and pedals in general, and studying how they work was kind of a "lightbulb" moment for me. The Electrosmah website is great in that regard, as it details several circuits and help in understanding how they really work. Which is especially interesting in explaining the basic building bricks of pretty much each and every pedal on the market. Another great ressource on the subject is Bryan Wampler's books, "Advanced DIY Effects Pedals: How To Design, Customize and Build Effect Pedals" in particular, as he goes through pretty much each and every circuit topology and the basics of pedals circuitry. If you're interested in that, pick up that book, it's amazing.

Regarding recording, I'm definitely in the "it all starts at the source" camp. To me, recording (as well as doing live sound, which is what I mostly do for a living), all starts at the source, and your job as an engineer is to capture what happens on stage and convey it to the best of your abilities. For sure, you can manipulate some of it, and in recording you can work towards creating tones that aren't really there in the room, but I'll always start by trying to be as faithful to the source as possible. Which means that mic choices and mic placement are done on a case-by-case basis, and intend to achieve that. You really see a divide there, as all the most experienced engineers (and those I've learnt the most from) will always start by listening to the source, then move the mic around to capture something that's as close to the way the source sounds, then work from there, as opposed to keeping the mic in one position and try to manipulate sound through electronic means (generally in audio, problems are better solved in the physical domain, as manipulating sound electronically/digitally always creates problems elsewhere, especially regarding phase coherency).
Yet one of my favorite recordings, which also one of the seminal 80s rock record, Def Leppard's _Hysteria_, is very engineered. But obviously here Mutt Lange and the late, great Mike Shipley wanted to create a sound that didn't really exist in the physical domain. The difference here being, they did it for artistic reasons, with a clear idea of what they wanted to create and how to achieve that, so that's quite another concept entirely. While the very same Mutt Lange approached AC/DC's album with the clear idea of trying to replicate on album what happened onstage, which must have called for very different solutions and choices. Again, matter of intent and goals.

As for tones, yeah there's been a shift in the way distorted guitars sound, which was caused by tunings going down and the way it changes relationships between guitar and bass. Though the best "modern" metal bands I've worked with usually have a very clear understanding of this, and guitar players still understand that guitar at heart is a mids-centric instrument, as treat it as such. It's just that focus in tone has moved from being in the high-mids (which Marshalls are notorious for) to lower mids. This is to me what defines a "modern" guitar tone. The potential issue being, low mids are a very cluttered area, as pretty much each and every instrument (include vocals) has lots of content there, which means you have to balance and carve out space differently. And mike up this slightly differently too (which is part of the appeal for the Fredman technique, as it delivers a very mid-centric tone that gives lots of cut and is perfect in that kind of situations).
And I hate triggered sounds, to me triggers are a problem-solver, but I hate how many drum tones in modern metal sound the same because everyone uses the same Steven Slate samples and same processing techniques. Seems like we're finally moving away from this, as I largely prefer "organic" tones from the 70s and the 80s (no matter how processed they can be), as they make each and every album different from the next one.

Anyhow...very nice experiments you did here, and again, once you find a tone in the room that works for you, keep experimenting with how to capture it as closely as you can, you'll learn a lot about mics and mic placement, and will probably find some pretty cool tones in the process  But yeah, it always starts at the source. And amps settings and mic placement are just a means to an end, there's no right and wrong there, only things that work and others that don't...for a particular situation and goal (but might very well work another time). Which is why I don't like "textbook" settings and mic placement, they only serve to narrow your horizons, where only using your ears working towards achieving a particular tone will widen them A LOT !


----------



## SmokeyDopey

I agree that the mic placement recipes are just a starting point. They're practical for eyeballing an approximate placement, but I don't really see it as an ultimate setup to get the same thing over and over. At least that's what I do; eyeball it, then make fine adjustments along the way.


----------



## Seventh Son

SmokeyDopey said:


> I agree that the mic placement recipes are just a starting point. They're practical for eyeballing an approximate placement, but I don't really see it as an ultimate setup to get the same thing over and over. At least that's what I do; eyeball it, then make fine adjustments along the way.


I've tried every which mic placement possible. My opinion is that they all have their pros and cons, at least when only one mic is used.

The center position has the brightness of the amp in the room, sounds most like the amp in the room, and is the most aggressive position, but it also comes with a dose of fizz atop the captured midrange, which, however, is least noticeable when the mic is right up on the grille. With the mic, say, 6 inches from the grille, it's a lot of fizz and bass, and little midrange, interestingly enough. I should also note that the center position feels and sounds most assuring on studio monitors during recording. It feels most dynamic and is very responsive to picking detail and playing nuances, possibly due to the brightness bringing out the detail.

The cap-edge position avoids most of the fizz, but is already somewhat of a compromise in brightness and detail. Overall it is a good compromise, and it is no wonder that for many folks, this is the go-to placement.

Positions just outside the cap edge can be pretty useable, but the further from the cap edge you go, the more the tone softens and dulls. The often-recommended position of midway between center and edge of speaker can be usable if the amp is already dialed in very bright, but it is not particularly useable for moderately dark to dark tone settings in the room, plus if you want a bright setting on the amp, the midway position, though it may be useable, does not represent the sound of the amp very faithfully.

Moreover, the center position can be feasible, as long as you turn off Presence almost completely, but also the brightness of the tone, which may be critical for getting the right sound in the room. So, although you might be able to use this position for very muffled settings, you are really fighting the process by having the amp sound one way, and the recorded tone the other.

All things considered, I think it makes the most sense to get the sound right in the room, as what we hear in the room is a good representation of all the frequencies mixed up into what we hear. To dial in the amp, you can raise the amp near ear level or leave it on the floor. In my experience, it doesn't make as much of the difference as I have read in articles and forums, as long as your ears stay out of the line of projection from the center of the speaker. Once the sound in the room is dialed in to taste, then it's all about finding a mic placement that captures it reasonably well with one mic. To that end, I don't think you can go much wrong with the mic on the cap edge or maybe just outside of it.

Over time, I have tried to study the recording techniques of Martin Birch and Kevin Shirley, doing my best with what little information that is available on Birch, and unreliable information about Shirley's technique. Based on some old and low-res footage, it appears that Birch prefers the cap-edge position, on the grille, possibly slightly pointed toward the center. I am not sure what type of mic Birch prefers. Going off of his mic list from the Live After Death liner notes, most likely a dynamic, either the SM57 or the MD421, or even the MD441. Shirley uses an X-Y pair with an SM57 and a Beyerdynamics M201, pointed "at the cone," where by "cone" I think he means "dust cap," about 6 inches "from the cone," which I assume to mean "from the grille."


----------



## Seventh Son

WellBurnTheSky said:


> Great !
> As for the TS-9, yeah, there's lots of misconceptions about that pedal, and pedals in general, and studying how they work was kind of a "lightbulb" moment for me. The Electrosmah website is great in that regard, as it details several circuits and help in understanding how they really work. Which is especially interesting in explaining the basic building bricks of pretty much each and every pedal on the market. Another great ressource on the subject is Bryan Wampler's books, "Advanced DIY Effects Pedals: How To Design, Customize and Build Effect Pedals" in particular, as he goes through pretty much each and every circuit topology and the basics of pedals circuitry. If you're interested in that, pick up that book, it's amazing.
> 
> Regarding recording, I'm definitely in the "it all starts at the source" camp. To me, recording (as well as doing live sound, which is what I mostly do for a living), all starts at the source, and your job as an engineer is to capture what happens on stage and convey it to the best of your abilities. For sure, you can manipulate some of it, and in recording you can work towards creating tones that aren't really there in the room, but I'll always start by trying to be as faithful to the source as possible. Which means that mic choices and mic placement are done on a case-by-case basis, and intend to achieve that. You really see a divide there, as all the most experienced engineers (and those I've learnt the most from) will always start by listening to the source, then move the mic around to capture something that's as close to the way the source sounds, then work from there, as opposed to keeping the mic in one position and try to manipulate sound through electronic means (generally in audio, problems are better solved in the physical domain, as manipulating sound electronically/digitally always creates problems elsewhere, especially regarding phase coherency).
> Yet one of my favorite recordings, which also one of the seminal 80s rock record, Def Leppard's _Hysteria_, is very engineered. But obviously here Mutt Lange and the late, great Mike Shipley wanted to create a sound that didn't really exist in the physical domain. The difference here being, they did it for artistic reasons, with a clear idea of what they wanted to create and how to achieve that, so that's quite another concept entirely. While the very same Mutt Lange approached AC/DC's album with the clear idea of trying to replicate on album what happened onstage, which must have called for very different solutions and choices. Again, matter of intent and goals.
> 
> As for tones, yeah there's been a shift in the way distorted guitars sound, which was caused by tunings going down and the way it changes relationships between guitar and bass. Though the best "modern" metal bands I've worked with usually have a very clear understanding of this, and guitar players still understand that guitar at heart is a mids-centric instrument, as treat it as such. It's just that focus in tone has moved from being in the high-mids (which Marshalls are notorious for) to lower mids. This is to me what defines a "modern" guitar tone. The potential issue being, low mids are a very cluttered area, as pretty much each and every instrument (include vocals) has lots of content there, which means you have to balance and carve out space differently. And mike up this slightly differently too (which is part of the appeal for the Fredman technique, as it delivers a very mid-centric tone that gives lots of cut and is perfect in that kind of situations).
> And I hate triggered sounds, to me triggers are a problem-solver, but I hate how many drum tones in modern metal sound the same because everyone uses the same Steven Slate samples and same processing techniques. Seems like we're finally moving away from this, as I largely prefer "organic" tones from the 70s and the 80s (no matter how processed they can be), as they make each and every album different from the next one.
> 
> Anyhow...very nice experiments you did here, and again, once you find a tone in the room that works for you, keep experimenting with how to capture it as closely as you can, you'll learn a lot about mics and mic placement, and will probably find some pretty cool tones in the process  But yeah, it always starts at the source. And amps settings and mic placement are just a means to an end, there's no right and wrong there, only things that work and others that don't...for a particular situation and goal (but might very well work another time). Which is why I don't like "textbook" settings and mic placement, they only serve to narrow your horizons, where only using your ears working towards achieving a particular tone will widen them A LOT !


I second your observation on modern tones. I recently noticed that even Saxon have moved toward darker, more lower-mid-focused tones with more bottom end, produced by Sneap. Maiden's recent two records with Shirley are another example. I can't say I like the evolution. I find the guitars don't stand out and are also competing with the bass. I know how tempting it can be for some people to make guitars sound bassy and thick for individual practice, but in the band context, that is not a viable approach. I remember a time when Metallica were considered super heavy. Now many of today's bands aim for even more extreme heaviness, which is counterproductive for the music. Unfortunately, it seems that good tone and a clear production take a backseat to what the uninformed customer and profit-oriented record companies want.


----------



## Kats

Just to beat a dead horse a little longer - the fact is, the same amp/cab can sound differently day to day! So your “recipe” always has to be tweaked. The reality is, the more you consistently record the more sensitive you become to minute changes in technique and the subtleties of tone. You have build your confidence to the point where you REALLY trust yourself and move fast. You can’t trust anything else - no book, no nothing. It just takes time, a lot of it. What you think sounds amazing in your first few years might make you cringe in 5. A good recording is the sum of a bunch of small little things.


----------



## Seventh Son

Kats said:


> Just to beat a dead horse a little longer - the fact is, the same amp/cab can sound differently day to day! So your “recipe” always has to be tweaked. The reality is, the more you consistently record the more sensitive you become to minute changes in technique and the subtleties of tone. You have build your confidence to the point where you REALLY trust yourself and move fast. You can’t trust anything else - no book, no nothing. It just takes time, a lot of it. What you think sounds amazing in your first few years might make you cringe in 5. A good recording is the sum of a bunch of small little things.


I fail to see how "the same amp/cab can sound differently day to day!" Sure, there are minor variances from day to day, but nothing that would make a big difference. As long as the settings and placement in the room are the same, the rig will sound more or less the same. A case in point: I just put in my daily practice. My amp settings and placement in the room were the same as last time. As far as I can tell, my amp sounded the same as the last time I plugged in.

While I am aware that guitar speakers are somewhat nonlinear and unpredictable from speaker to speaker, they do function based on the same principle, which is based on an electric current moving a coil, moving the cone, and thus displacing air and creating sound waves. The geometry of a speaker dictates that there are certain physical properties and thus acoustic properties that allow us to come up with a general theory based on science.

Additionally, my experience with speakers has been very consistent. If I choose a certain mic placement, I pretty much know what to expect from that position. I don't like relying on truisms, and Lord knows there are many such truism that get repeated on the Internet, and that, when put to the test, don't hold up to scrutiny.

One such truism, for example, is that tone is in the fingers. I say that's a vast overstatement. A power chord played through a distorted amp is a power chord. It will sound the same regardless of who's playing the chord. I admit that phrasing _is_ in the fingers, but once you send a signal through distortion, phrasing has no significant effect on EQ.


----------



## Kats

Well, we apparently have completely opposite views and experiences then 

Kinda special actually - to be 100% in complete disagreement with absolutely no room for compromise, is actually pretty rare!


----------



## SmokeyDopey

Seventh Son said:


> I fail to see how "the same amp/cab can sound differently day to day!" Sure, there are minor variances from day to day, but nothing that would make a big difference. As long as the settings and placement in the room are the same, the rig will sound more or less the same. A case in point: I just put in my daily practice. My amp settings and placement in the room were the same as last time. As far as I can tell, my amp sounded the same as the last time I plugged in.
> 
> While I am aware that guitar speakers are somewhat nonlinear and unpredictable from speaker to speaker, they do function based on the same principle, which is based on an electric current moving a coil, moving the cone, and thus displacing air and creating sound waves. The geometry of a speaker dictates that there are certain physical properties and thus acoustic properties that allow us to come up with a general theory based on science.
> 
> Additionally, my experience with speakers has been very consistent. If I choose a certain mic placement, I pretty much know what to expect from that position. I don't like relying on truisms, and Lord knows there are many such truism that get repeated on the Internet, and that, when put to the test, don't hold up to scrutiny.
> 
> One such truism, for example, is that tone is in the fingers. I say that's a vast overstatement. A power chord played through a distorted amp is a power chord. It will sound the same regardless of who's playing the chord. I admit that phrasing _is_ in the fingers, but once you send a signal through distortion, phrasing has no significant effect on EQ.



I get what you're saying and I really like the scientific approach, but if you record different players and different rooms then that approach becomes just a starting point and you'll find yourself making tweaks to the placements you're accustomed to from your playing, your settings, picking attack, pick material, guitar used, etc.


----------



## WellBurnTheSky

Seventh Son said:


> I fail to see how "the same amp/cab can sound differently day to day!" Sure, there are minor variances from day to day, but nothing that would make a big difference. As long as the settings and placement in the room are the same, the rig will sound more or less the same. A case in point: I just put in my daily practice. My amp settings and placement in the room were the same as last time. As far as I can tell, my amp sounded the same as the last time I plugged in.
> 
> While I am aware that guitar speakers are somewhat nonlinear and unpredictable from speaker to speaker, they do function based on the same principle, which is based on an electric current moving a coil, moving the cone, and thus displacing air and creating sound waves. The geometry of a speaker dictates that there are certain physical properties and thus acoustic properties that allow us to come up with a general theory based on science.
> 
> Additionally, my experience with speakers has been very consistent. If I choose a certain mic placement, I pretty much know what to expect from that position. I don't like relying on truisms, and Lord knows there are many such truism that get repeated on the Internet, and that, when put to the test, don't hold up to scrutiny.
> 
> One such truism, for example, is that tone is in the fingers. I say that's a vast overstatement. A power chord played through a distorted amp is a power chord. It will sound the same regardless of who's playing the chord. I admit that phrasing _is_ in the fingers, but once you send a signal through distortion, phrasing has no significant effect on EQ.


Except lots of factors have an impact on sound. Temperature and hygrometry both change the way (the speed, actually) sound moves. Variations in hygrometry will impact the speaker's cone. Variations in wall voltage will slightly impact the way your amp sounds and behaves.
For sure, having a controlled environment (which is possible at home or in a studio) will reduce the factors.
Live, it's another story. A given balance will work in an empty room, but go to shit once the room's filled with people (as temperature goes up, sound is reflected and absorbed differently, etc). Been there (thousands of times), done that.

And one thing you definitely cannot control is, from day to day, even from hour to hour, you'll hear things slightly differently. There's a whole field of research called psychoacoustics that deal with that. The Fletcher-Munson curves (that quantifies the fact that at different loudness levels your perception of low end and high end content is altered relative to midrange) are an exemple of this. Another thing is, as you get tired you start perceiving things differently.
Not even talking about the fact that we all understand music differently, and pretty much everyone on the planet will hear things differently and have different expectations regarding tone. Which is one's "bright and clear" will be another one's "harsh", and so on. Some things we can all agree on, but not everything. Which is a good thing, if you ask me.

Also, a given tone might work for a given arrangement, but won't in another. A given harmonic and spectral content will not interact equally with anything and everything. Which means the same amp, same settings into the same mic and preamp, will sit completely differently in a mix depending on what's happening around it.

So yeah, you can get scientific with this, but at one point you get to realize, there's a myriad of factors that impact tone and the way you perceive it, several of which you have no control over. Part of being an experienced engineer is understanding all these and coming to terms with it.
To me, being an engineer is asking oneself "how do I want this to sound ? How do I get there ?", then use your technical knowledge and the technical tools you have available to get from a starting point ("how does it sound right now ? what needs to be solved ?") to a destination (the aforementioned "how do I want it to sound ?").

Regarding the "tone is in the fingers" thing, my take on it is, some technical elements of your playing, such as right hand attack and left hand technique (vibrato being one of them) will impact the way gear behaves. And this will vary wildly from player to player. Which is why you can play on your gear and sound one way, then hand the guitar to another player and he'll sound differently.
Also, we all tend to dial in our gear slightly differently (again, not two people hear things exactly the same way), usually in a way that compliments your playing. Which is why a given guitar/pedals/amp combination will sound differently in the hands of different players. And why some settings will work for some, and not for others.

Again, and bottom line (TL, DR also): we're all dealing in relatives here. Which is why any "textbook" technique will at best be a usable starting point, but almost never works as such.
I'd advise you to read "Zen and the Art of Mixing" by Mixerman/Eric Sarafin, it's very interesting since he almost doesn't talk about techniques as such, but deals with the way you approach mixing. He also wrote books on recording and producing that I haven't read (yet) but should be equally interesting.


----------



## Exojam

Asking again and if you would just prefer to send me a PM that is fine.

What software programs are folks using to record with? Unfortunately right now the free kind would be what I am looking for so hopefully I could get at least a few of you can provide me some information.

Thanks, James


----------



## Filipe Soares

Exojam said:


> Asking again and if you would just prefer to send me a PM that is fine.
> 
> What software programs are folks using to record with? Unfortunately right now the free kind would be what I am looking for so hopefully I could get at least a few of you can provide me some information.
> 
> Thanks, James


if you want something free go reaper. works great!

if you want "free" and are a mac user, download logic pro x from pirate bay.


----------



## Exojam

Thank you very much. I will check it out.


----------



## Seventh Son

After some extensive experimentation with close- and distant-miking, I have realized that there is really no way that close-miking can capture what we are hearing in the room. A guitar speaker (and even stereo speakers) just sounds different (i.e., ridiculously thin and fizzy) up close than it does in the room from the regular listener's perspective (which is severely off-axis). Which makes me wonder: Why do the experts and semi-pros all repeat the same old advice about how using just one SM57 up on the grille and in the right position on the speaker is some kind of tried-and-true technique, when it is factually impossible to get good results without extreme EQ-ing in the box?

I messed around in GarageBand today and learned that in order to get rid of the woofiness and fizz on my close-miked tracks recorded at the cap edge, I would have to HPF at 180Hz, LPF at 4400Hz, and add a very aggressive peak of 12dB around 800Hz.

That is what it takes to get reasonable, natural sounding results, however, you will find that kind of advice nowhere. Slipperman talks about aggressive HP- and LPF-ing, but most other resources (hundreds of them) that I have consulted just tell us to stick an SM57 somewhere on the grille, maybe gently low-pass and high-pass, maybe clean up some mud at 200Hz, but that's all it takes. Easy-peasy...NOT. What are your thoughts?


----------



## Kats

Seventh Son said:


> Why do the experts and semi-pros all repeat the same old advice about how using just one SM57 up on the grille and in the right position on the speaker is some kind of tried-and-true technique,



Not really, maybe live sound. Mostly I’ve seen Sennheisers (especially MD409’s), U87s (non ai), U67s, Beyer m160s. Sm57s in conjunction with something else perhaps - but I think the consensus was that there were better choices.


----------



## Seventh Son

Kats said:


> Not really, maybe live sound. Mostly I’ve seen Sennheisers (especially MD409’s), U87s (non ai), U67s, Beyer m160s. Sm57s in conjunction with something else perhaps - but I think the consensus was that there were better choices.


Very interesting. I don’t think my problem is the mic. There’s something in the midrange, around 800–1000Hz, that’s missing at the source when from close-miking.


----------



## Kats

Well forgetting the mic for a second, you're setting your sounds up for the room you're in. Your ideal room tone set up takes into account all the nulls and peaks and other acoustic anomalies inherent specifically to your room. So perhaps (and this is a WAG) you have a big midrange peak in your room that your dialling out on your amp. And when you close mic it, you get what you get. Although, TBH, your description sounds pretty drastic.

Your only choice is to get some headphones on and start moving the mic around (and dials) until you get a sound you like. 

Also note, you could be overloading something in the chain (preamp- converters etc). If you're not sure, try an in-line PAD before the preamp. Also try lowering your DAW levels to -6dB or even -10dB peaks to make sure your not crapping out your converters. It could be anything. Another common mistake is too much gain from the amp, or not listening to the sound in context of the arrangement. Many GREAT e-guitar sounds solo'd may not seem to be (on the surface) that great taken out of context. Jut thinking out loud here...


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Seventh Son said:


> After some extensive experimentation with close- and distant-miking, I have realized that there is really no way that close-miking can capture what we are hearing in the room. A guitar speaker (and even stereo speakers) just sounds different (i.e., ridiculously thin and fizzy) up close than it does in the room from the regular listener's perspective (which is severely off-axis). Which makes me wonder: Why do the experts and semi-pros all repeat the same old advice about how using just one SM57 up on the grille and in the right position on the speaker is some kind of tried-and-true technique, when it is factually impossible to get good results without extreme EQ-ing in the box?
> 
> I messed around in GarageBand today and learned that in order to get rid of the woofiness and fizz on my close-miked tracks recorded at the cap edge, I would have to HPF at 180Hz, LPF at 4400Hz, and add a very aggressive peak of 12dB around 800Hz.
> 
> That is what it takes to get reasonable, natural sounding results, however, you will find that kind of advice nowhere. Slipperman talks about aggressive HP- and LPF-ing, but most other resources (hundreds of them) that I have consulted just tell us to stick an SM57 somewhere on the grille, maybe gently low-pass and high-pass, maybe clean up some mud at 200Hz, but that's all it takes. Easy-peasy...NOT. What are your thoughts?


because, like I stated pages back, it's easy/lazy to do & get a "good enough" sound for most people...

Back in the '80s, when I got my feet wet, everybody wanted to simplify things, in capture, then add reverbs/delays, etc.

Like drums, for instance, it wouldn't have been unheard of, to use 2 rolls of duct tape on the drum heads to stop all resonant ringing. Stuff the kickdrom w/ pillows, etc. Lay a mic on the pillow & mic all the drums close & gate the hell out of everything. It was pretty ridiculous. You'd made a $5000 drumset sound like you're tapping on cardboard boxes. "bip", "bip", "bip", then you'd add all sorts of reverb & EQ.

Today, that's a sacrilege.

Same thing w/ guitar, shove an SM57 into the speaker & simulate the room w/ an SPX90 & some chorus.

That's why a lot of guitar sounds started sounding all hollow & nasally.

I still hear that, most x's, when I hear an SM57 on a guitar amp. It's a sound I developed an ear for way back & have heard ever since.

The idea though, is to learn many techniques, then use them to your advantage. Sometimes the nasally throaty SM57 in the speaker is the right sound for the mix, at any given time. But, then, you feel that having that all the time, all the way through is boring & lacks the dimension that the song calls for. That's when you need to figure out what you need. Do you need something totally different? Or just add something?

Sometimes it's good to use something a bit more stereo & wide, then, when the song breaks down to a stop, w/ the guitar playing the intro all over, it might be good to reduce the guitar down to a single SM57, from a complex mic'ing, then, when the song kicks back in, switch back to the complex stereo width.

Vocals do that sometimes, like, they have a natural sounding reverb, etc. all the way through & the music stops & the vocal is acapella, w/ a 100% dry vocal, where it sounds like the vocal is in a vacuum. But, it's for effect. dry is the effect.

the same w/ micing techniques. Use them for effect & switch them up. Even if you only do small differences, it'll help keep your sounds from just melting into each other w/o distinction between the tones.

You get too many layers of the exact tone playing over each other, at some point, it becomes destructive.

Back, late '80s/early '90s, background vocals became big. One thing that you'd find out is that having any more than 2-3 of the same voice, same note, same timbre, became destructive to how big the chorus sounded. It worked better w/ more voices, & different notes (up to a point). Still, after doubling, panning & everybody singing different parts, you get to about 16 tracks & it's hard to make it bigger sounding, rather, you just start getting timing issues - similar to phase issues. Having 1-2 different timings is ok, but, when you get 16, well, things start turning to mush...

Take that to guitar. Having 5 guitars all sounding the same, playing different parts, gets cluttered & muddy, where it starts working against you & you'll gain advantage of simplification, the old "less is more" mantra comes to play.

There's nothing wrong w/ hi/lo pass filtering, unless the guitar that sits in the mix then sounds like shit. You might need to unfilter during solo guitar parts.

Guys like Alan Parsons preached on EQ/filters. He was well renowned for his production. I've not used his methods, but, a lot can be gleaned by gathering all the info & being able to use it, along w/ everything else in your toolbox.


----------



## WellBurnTheSky

DoD hit the nail on the head: it's a toolbox, and you have to pick the right tool for the job. In that case, ask yourself what tone you want to get, and how guitar will sit in the mix with these. And choose your mics (and place them) accordingly.

The thing with the 57 is, it focuses guitar on midrange, which is the frequency range where a guitar (especially a distorted one) sits in, and helps it cut through the mix. Not necessarily the most pleasing tone by itself, nor the more realistic, but one that tends to do what it's supposed to do pretty well. And one we're pretty used to as well. When you want your guitar to be dry, present, cutting and agressive, chances are, a close-miked 57 will do a damn good job at it. By itself, or in combination with another mic with a widen frequency response (hence the classic 57/R121 setup). Or some room/ambiance mics, depending on what you want and the room you're in.

Is it THE magic bullet that works in each and every situation ? No of course not. But again, in audio there's no such thing as a magic bullet. But in rock/hard rock/metal it's more often than not a pretty good starting point.

As for big vocal stacks, there's a reason why plugins such as VocAlign became so fashionable  Though one might argue that in the 70s Queen was stacking tracks over tracks of vocals and managed not to sound muddy or blurred in the process. Props to the band AND to Roy Thomas Baker for achieving what they did.
And yeah, it's all in the arrangement (and performance obviously) !


----------



## Seventh Son

Today I revisited the possibility that I may be recording at less than ideal volumes. I close-miked the amp and recorded the same "The Trooper" riffs with master volume on 3, 7, 8, and 10 and all EQ around noon. I've done this experiment before, but (1) didn't perceive it as that big of a difference and (2) never went past 8. What I found this time around was that compared to 10, the amp sounded almost pathetic on 3. It was almost like listening to white noise. On 7, it was quite a bit better, but still fizzy. On 8, it was still much more solid. But on 10 it sounded still better. Fuller in the bass and a further reduction in fizz. A quick comparison of the Vol = 10 track with the original "The Trooper" isolated tracks showed a very reasonable approximation of that type of tone.

So, basically, it seems that volume is definitely part of the puzzle to getting good recorded tones with my DSL15C. But, jeez, I never thought I would have to crank it all the way to 10. Even the jump from 8 to 10 was a significant enough improvement to warrant putting it on full blast for recording purposes.

Is this something you guys have experienced, as well?


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Seventh Son said:


> Today I revisited the possibility that I may be recording at less than ideal volumes. I close-miked the amp and recorded the same "The Trooper" riffs with master volume on 3, 7, 8, and 10 and all EQ around noon. I've done this experiment before, but (1) didn't perceive it as that big of a difference and (2) never went past 8. What I found this time around was that compared to 10, the amp sounded almost pathetic on 3. It was almost like listening to white noise. On 7, it was quite a bit better, but still fizzy. On 8, it was still much more solid. But on 10 it sounded still better. Fuller in the bass and a further reduction in fizz. A quick comparison of the Vol = 10 track with the original "The Trooper" isolated tracks showed a very reasonable approximation of that type of tone.
> 
> So, basically, it seems that volume is definitely part of the puzzle to getting good recorded tones with my DSL15C. But, jeez, I never thought I would have to crank it all the way to 10. Even the jump from 8 to 10 was a significant enough improvement to warrant putting it on full blast for recording purposes.
> 
> Is this something you guys have experienced, as well?


but, but... the internet says that volume & output tubes have nothing to do w/ the DSL sound... ...

Every amp has a "sweet spot". Most amp's it's not on 10, but, it does come at a good volume. It depends on a lot of things.

If that's your sweet spot, then go w/ it. You still might try mixing it up a bit for textures & see how well different tones mix w/ each other...


----------



## Seventh Son

Dogs of Doom said:


> but, but... the internet says that volume & output tubes have nothing to do w/ the DSL sound... ...
> 
> Every amp has a "sweet spot". Most amp's it's not on 10, but, it does come at a good volume. It depends on a lot of things.
> 
> If that's your sweet spot, then go w/ it. You still might try mixing it up a bit for textures & see how well different tones mix w/ each other...


On my DSL15C, I don't think we can talk serious business until master volume is _at least on 8_. I suspect that my DSL20CR is the same. And, yes, you're right. The whole Internet thing about modern Marshalls' tone being all in the preamp is a myth. Here's the proof.





And while I'm on the topic of myths, there is another one I've been wanting to put out there for you guys to comment on.

So, as you know, conventional advice tells us that if you want the wall-of-guitars sound (not that I do, but that's beside the point), you should record the left and right guitars with different tones to avoid "big mono." Looking at most Maiden records, for example, their left and right guitars usually sound identical, and even when there are subtle differences, the midrange is about the same on both guitars. It has also been my experience that if you record one guitar with a scooped tone, and one with a mid-rangey tone, the guitar with the stronger midrange will just dominate the mix. So, I'm not really sure where this idea of using different tones comes from, but based on my experience (and common sense) I am seriously questioning it. I think in pop music, where you might want a heavy guitar and then maybe a thin, fizzy guitar, different tones can be just the ticket, as the guitars are part of a bigger arrangement, but in rock and metal, where you need solid, driving guitars, I think the philosophy of using different tones to create a wall-of-guitars is mostly unsuitable. What do you guys think?


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

You have to know how to mix so the tones gel together/complement each other rather than clashing or one dominating. I had the idea next time I record to try recording on the bridge PU and and then doubling/recording again on neck PU...this would be for heavier styles of course. Get a mix of the pointy and the chunky. Maybe even two of each so you could pan one bridge/neck mix left and one right. 

I don’t have the luxury of recording my DSL40C super loud, as I share a wall with someone. I tried that at my old place, got it up to 8 or 9, lead 1, was still not super impressed. This was with an sm57, probably. May have tried a 58 too. Unfortunately I only have a 57, 58 and an AT4050 (large diaphragm condenser). Never gotten a great recorded tone, like ever. 

Last few things I’ve recorded I’ve done almost entirely (gasp!) with amp sims, either the ones built into logic or most recently guitar Rig. They dont sound much different to my ears than the results I was getting close mic’ing my amp. I have tried various techniques like duplicating the track and having one sim with a close mic and one more distant or on the edge of the speaker, to simulate recording with two mics. Not super impressed with results. 

One thing I learned that really kinda blew my mind is how and a delay can really beef up a lacking guitar sound. Last project I had two rhythm guitars, panned left and right. Added delay (more of a “feel” delay than one you actually hear in the mix), crossfed (L gtr’s delay panned right and vice versa). I thinned the hell out of the guitars with a high pass filter, and some notches to fit in the mix better,and it’s amazing how the delay keeps it sounding thick despite that. You can really thin the crap out of it. 

All that said, there is a muddiness in lower mids on my guitars that despite playing with amp sim/distortion etc. settings for hours, I can’t dial out. Even on my real amp it’s there. So I’m thinking it’s maybe the pickups? I hooked up my MXR 10 band eq in the real amp’s loop and had some success by reducing the 250 band a little and boosting somewhere else. Of course that’s at ultra low volume (less than 1) so who knows what it’d sound like at gig volume. Have yet to try this with recording direct in/amp sim. PS I use an Apogee Duet into Logic so my preamps should be legit. 

Any thoughts on the paragraph above?


----------



## Australian

Kats said:


> Just to beat a dead horse a little longer - the fact is, the same amp/cab can sound differently day to day! So your “recipe” always has to be tweaked. The reality is, the more you consistently record the more sensitive you become to minute changes in technique and the subtleties of tone. You have build your confidence to the point where you REALLY trust yourself and move fast. You can’t trust anything else - no book, no nothing. It just takes time, a lot of it. What you think sounds amazing in your first few years might make you cringe in 5. A good recording is the sum of a bunch of small little things.



The more rules there are, the less action.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Seventh Son said:


> On my DSL15C, I don't think we can talk serious business until master volume is _at least on 8_. I suspect that my DSL20CR is the same. And, yes, you're right. The whole Internet thing about modern Marshalls' tone being all in the preamp is a myth. Here's the proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And while I'm on the topic of myths, there is another one I've been wanting to put out there for you guys to comment on.
> 
> So, as you know, conventional advice tells us that if you want the wall-of-guitars sound (not that I do, but that's beside the point), you should record the left and right guitars with different tones to avoid "big mono." Looking at most Maiden records, for example, their left and right guitars usually sound identical, and even when there are subtle differences, the midrange is about the same on both guitars. It has also been my experience that if you record one guitar with a scooped tone, and one with a mid-rangey tone, the guitar with the stronger midrange will just dominate the mix. So, I'm not really sure where this idea of using different tones comes from, but based on my experience (and common sense) I am seriously questioning it. I think in pop music, where you might want a heavy guitar and then maybe a thin, fizzy guitar, different tones can be just the ticket, as the guitars are part of a bigger arrangement, but in rock and metal, where you need solid, driving guitars, I think the philosophy of using different tones to create a wall-of-guitars is mostly unsuitable. What do you guys think?



#2 sounds best to my ear (vol 7).
______________

that sounds polar opposite to what I just said about the army of guitars, but... I'm not really talking scoop, unless, say, during the lead solo, you scoop the rhythm guitar, so the myriad of guitars on top cut, while keeping the semblance of rhythm intact.

but, if you have 2 guitars doing a harmony, you might want to do a high pass on 1 guitar & let the other hold the bottom end, to avoid getting muddy.

If you scoop a rhythm guitar underneath a solo, you'll want to unscoop it, when the solo's over...

Now, I'm not talking death metal scoop, just enough to give air to the lead solo, so you don't have to unnaturally boost it. You want any boost to sound natural, not blatant...


----------



## Seventh Son

Dogs of Doom said:


> #2 sounds best to my ear (vol 7).
> ______________
> 
> that sounds polar opposite to what I just said about the army of guitars, but... I'm not really talking scoop, unless, say, during the lead solo, you scoop the rhythm guitar, so the myriad of guitars on top cut, while keeping the semblance of rhythm intact.
> 
> but, if you have 2 guitars doing a harmony, you might want to do a high pass on 1 guitar & let the other hold the bottom end, to avoid getting muddy.
> 
> If you scoop a rhythm guitar underneath a solo, you'll want to unscoop it, when the solo's over...
> 
> Now, I'm not talking death metal scoop, just enough to give air to the lead solo, so you don't have to unnaturally boost it. You want any boost to sound natural, not blatant...


It's intersting you liked Vol= 7 best. I can see why. It's still bright and abrasive, but has the least fizz of the bright tones. Once you go past 7, there's more compression and warmth. To me, the power chords sound really great on 8 and 10. Since I don't have a lot of experience playing tube amps at those volumes, maybe you guys can help me figure this out. Isn't 8 and 10 the point where the power amp really gets involved on my amp, as that's where there's a drastic shift in tone, with more saturated mids and more warmth? If yes, shouldn't that be the most desirable spot to run the amp?


----------



## Seventh Son

AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing said:


> You have to know how to mix so the tones gel together/complement each other rather than clashing or one dominating. I had the idea next time I record to try recording on the bridge PU and and then doubling/recording again on neck PU...this would be for heavier styles of course. Get a mix of the pointy and the chunky. Maybe even two of each so you could pan one bridge/neck mix left and one right.
> 
> I don’t have the luxury of recording my DSL40C super loud, as I share a wall with someone. I tried that at my old place, got it up to 8 or 9, lead 1, was still not super impressed. This was with an sm57, probably. May have tried a 58 too. Unfortunately I only have a 57, 58 and an AT4050 (large diaphragm condenser). Never gotten a great recorded tone, like ever.
> 
> Last few things I’ve recorded I’ve done almost entirely (gasp!) with amp sims, either the ones built into logic or most recently guitar Rig. They dont sound much different to my ears than the results I was getting close mic’ing my amp. I have tried various techniques like duplicating the track and having one sim with a close mic and one more distant or on the edge of the speaker, to simulate recording with two mics. Not super impressed with results.
> 
> One thing I learned that really kinda blew my mind is how and a delay can really beef up a lacking guitar sound. Last project I had two rhythm guitars, panned left and right. Added delay (more of a “feel” delay than one you actually hear in the mix), crossfed (L gtr’s delay panned right and vice versa). I thinned the hell out of the guitars with a high pass filter, and some notches to fit in the mix better,and it’s amazing how the delay keeps it sounding thick despite that. You can really thin the crap out of it.
> 
> All that said, there is a muddiness in lower mids on my guitars that despite playing with amp sim/distortion etc. settings for hours, I can’t dial out. Even on my real amp it’s there. So I’m thinking it’s maybe the pickups? I hooked up my MXR 10 band eq in the real amp’s loop and had some success by reducing the 250 band a little and boosting somewhere else. Of course that’s at ultra low volume (less than 1) so who knows what it’d sound like at gig volume. Have yet to try this with recording direct in/amp sim. PS I use an Apogee Duet into Logic so my preamps should be legit.
> 
> Any thoughts on the paragraph above?


You _only_ have an SM57, SM58, and AT4050? Those are great mics. By the way, the difference between an SM57 and SM58 on guitars is super subtle. The SM58 has a bit more air and sounds just a touch more open, but either one is a great choice. To my ear, the SM57 has a certain pumping quality, which is why I like it. It kind of breathes with the music in the lower frequencies.

I get why you'd want to resort to amp sims. I've heard many that sound just as good as the real thing, so tone is not the issue. I, personally, enjoy miking amps and engaging with the amps, room, and the whole process. It's the learning process that I enjoy, as acoustics, recording, mixing, and mastering are a very challenging skill to master, so it's fun.

I am surprised you couldn't get any satisfactory tones out of your DSL40C at high volumes. However, I can relate to your frustrations with muddiness. I, too, am not really sure what causes it. I don't use boost pedals in front of the amp, so maybe that's it, but I'm thinking it should be possible to get similarly tight bottom end even without pedals. I've seen it done before, it's just that I don't know how to replicate it myself. Maybe it's amp placement, room acoustics, too much bass dialed in, proximity effect, etc. Anyway, I can easily live with a little bit of muddiness, but fizz I cannot stand.


----------



## Michael Roe

I just move things and knobs until it sounds good. Sometimes I will even use a different amp, cab, mic or guitar. Wow, what a difference another guitar or amp or speaker cab can make.
I always look at it like this: If I can't make it sound like I want within a short few minutes, then choices need to be made. Like, different guitars, amps, cabs, mics etc. If it still does not sound good then replace the player!


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

Funnily enough, even with the am SIMS the sm57 is kind "eh" for me. Too much...I dunno...upper mid concentration. I have fizz problems too in addition to mud (if by fizz we mean the ever-present "shhhhhh" with chords when any significant amount of gain is present). You can EQ a surprising amount of THAT out too before it starts to hurt the tone. 

With a real amp I have literally spent WEEKS tweaking knobs/moving mics etc. to get a good tone ( a few hours or so a day), before giving up and recording. At least with a sim you can do it all from the desktop and hear the recorded tone instantly.

I can't remember which virtual mics I settled on with my last project but I know it wasn't the 57. 

I'm not saying the DSL40c can't do good tones at high volumes, I'm saying the particular thing I'm usually after is not what it does ("so why did you buy it?" Cause it was an affordable, decent sounding, portable Marshall). Best way I can describe is, the dominant frequency I'm usually after in my guitar tones for rhyhm, that is, the frequency that really dominates or punches through the mix for guitars, is lower that what the amp, or at least the amp in combination with my guitars, wants it to be. I'm usually after that kind of powerful, middy tone, and the DSL +my guitars (almost always on bridge pickups...neck not really right for my types of rhythm tones) dominates in a very "pointy" range...maybe 3500+ HZ, where it's all upper mids and treble. Again, maybe it's the guitars/pickups (LP has a JB/Jazz, SG I believe 57 classics - factory everything 2017 standard model), cause even with the sims I was fighting that. "So why did you buy those guitars?" I thought I liked those tones...at the time.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing said:


> Funnily enough, even with the am SIMS the sm57 is kind "eh" for me. Too much...I dunno...upper mid concentration. I have fizz problems too in addition to mud (if by fizz we mean the ever-present "shhhhhh" with chords when any significant amount of gain is present). You can EQ a surprising amount of THAT out too before it starts to hurt the tone.
> 
> With a real amp I have literally spent WEEKS tweaking knobs/moving mics etc. to get a good tone ( a few hours or so a day), before giving up and recording. At least with a sim you can do it all from the desktop and hear the recorded tone instantly.
> 
> I can't remember which virtual mics I settled on with my last project but I know it wasn't the 57.
> 
> I'm not saying the DSL40c can't do good tones at high volumes, I'm saying the particular thing I'm usually after is not what it does ("so why did you buy it?" Cause it was an affordable, decent sounding, portable Marshall). Best way I can describe is, the dominant frequency I'm usually after in my guitar tones for rhyhm, that is, the frequency that really dominates or punches through the mix for guitars, is lower that what the amp, or at least the amp in combination with my guitars, wants it to be. I'm usually after that kind of powerful, middy tone, and the DSL +my guitars (almost always on bridge pickups...neck not really right for my types of rhythm tones) dominates in a very "pointy" range...maybe 3500+ HZ, where it's all upper mids and treble. Again, maybe it's the guitars/pickups (LP has a JB/Jazz, SG I believe 57 classics - factory everything 2017 standard model), cause even with the sims I was fighting that. "So why did you buy those guitars?" I thought I liked those tones...at the time.


I hesitate to comment on combo amp's, because I personally hate open-back guitar cab's, which is inherent in a combo.

They are very room specific & also room placement specific, in how they sound. W/ a closed back/sealed cab, the sound is mostly forward facing in a beam. If you put a combo, in the middle of the room, it will sound very different, than if you place it facing away from a wall. Move the cab inches closer/away from the wall & you'll be tuning the room.

Now, sometimes you end up dialing things in, to compensate for the tones missing, because the cab is not contained, nor building up the sound pressure, the speaker requires for proper excursion. Adding that extra bass/mid, can cause problems, because, now, your core sound is boosted in a muddy region, even if it sounds thin in the room. Now that you are boosting these frequencies, the speaker is being pushed harder, but, efficiency is lost, due to the lack of back pressure that the speaker is designed for. This will cause the speaker to get flubby & farty, even though the sound doesn't sound like you are getting enough of those frequencies.

So, even if you aren't getting the farty sound from the speakers, you are pushing those farty frequencies into your IR feed...

try buying a closed back cab, & either add it to the internal open-back, or use it instead of. I'd suggest a plywood cab, for the most part. Marshall uses MDF for the rear panel baffle, which tames the mid-range. Some people like to trade it out w/ ply & get that bark, that it provides.

Lots of things to try. It just depends, I know you do your show & try to keep it simple, so you probably have to compromise for that. Recording? If you are releasing it to showcase your act as a promo? I wouldn't compromise, & find what works best for you.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Seventh Son said:


> It's intersting you liked Vol= 7 best. I can see why. It's still bright and abrasive, but has the least fizz of the bright tones. Once you go past 7, there's more compression and warmth. To me, the power chords sound really great on 8 and 10. Since I don't have a lot of experience playing tube amps at those volumes, maybe you guys can help me figure this out. Isn't 8 and 10 the point where the power amp really gets involved on my amp, as that's where there's a drastic shift in tone, with more saturated mids and more warmth? If yes, shouldn't that be the most desirable spot to run the amp?


I'm not familiar w/ the DSL15 enough to say what it sounds like in the room, etc., or playing around w/. I only have your clips to go by ATM.

That said, that clip, to me, sounds best, on it's own, but, maybe not in a mix, IDK... 

It sounds the fattest.


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

I am aware of the open back/closed back issue...have not found it worthwhile to spend money on to investigate...this is only a hobby and again, even with a 2x12 or 4x12 closed back I couldn't get it near a good volume where I live now. Maybe some day?

One thing I have learned, and of course you read it/hear it all the time, is that solo sound does not equal mix sound. Your ears can get fooled playing solo 'cause, at least in my case, you start straining to hear what you want to hear, whether that's chime or grunt or growl or grind or any of the weird words we use to describe sound. Yeah, it may be in there SOMEWHERE, but it's not the thing that dominates and the mic doesn't have your brain to filter out the mud/fizz/etc. All that heaviness or grit or whatever can turn into mud or fizz in a mix, when everything else is added, and if you try to take away some of the mudd or fizz you can sometimes kill the instrument's tone. 

My experience over many years of farting around with my own mixes is that every instrument seems to have a dominant frequency, that is, the thing you hear the most in the mix. Not just a range like everyone says, but a certain, "center frequency" where each thing really shines/pops through. With guitar you have some room to shape it but it can be limited, like he said above, by your amp, or your pickups. Seems like you want the dominant frequency that's already there to be the "good stuff", as opposed to trying to EQ it or whatever to bring out the good while suppressing the harsh/mud. My bass wants to sound a certain way no matter how I screw with it, my guitar/amp wants to sound a certain way no matter how much I screw with it. My vox sound a certain way EQ-wise no matter what pitch I sing at. I use superior drummer and EZ drummer for drums, and with all the kits and individual pieces available, some are bassier, some a clickier, and everywhere in between. Trying to EQ any of these things into a different "shape" than how it wants to be never seems to work out. 

I'm trying to be more objective these days and hear the dominant qualities (what will this sound like in a mix?) when I'm setting things up to begin with as opposed to getting way into it and realizing I have to make radical changes to a base tone.


----------



## Seventh Son

Dogs of Doom said:


> I'm not familiar w/ the DSL15 enough to say what it sounds like in the room, etc., or playing around w/. I only have your clips to go by ATM.
> 
> That said, that clip, to me, sounds best, on it's own, but, maybe not in a mix, IDK...
> 
> It sounds the fattest.


The recording was done with the DSL15C through an closed-back MX112 extension cab with a Vintage 30. It's interesting you think 7 sounds fattest. To my ears, 8 sounds really good, and maybe even 10. Tough to say. Anyway, the bottom line is the same: Volume, volume, volume.


----------



## Seventh Son

Dogs of Doom said:


> I hesitate to comment on combo amp's, because I personally hate open-back guitar cab's, which is inherent in a combo.
> 
> They are very room specific & also room placement specific, in how they sound. W/ a closed back/sealed cab, the sound is mostly forward facing in a beam. If you put a combo, in the middle of the room, it will sound very different, than if you place it facing away from a wall. Move the cab inches closer/away from the wall & you'll be tuning the room.
> 
> Now, sometimes you end up dialing things in, to compensate for the tones missing, because the cab is not contained, nor building up the sound pressure, the speaker requires for proper excursion. Adding that extra bass/mid, can cause problems, because, now, your core sound is boosted in a muddy region, even if it sounds thin in the room. Now that you are boosting these frequencies, the speaker is being pushed harder, but, efficiency is lost, due to the lack of back pressure that the speaker is designed for. This will cause the speaker to get flubby & farty, even though the sound doesn't sound like you are getting enough of those frequencies.
> 
> So, even if you aren't getting the farty sound from the speakers, you are pushing those farty frequencies into your IR feed...
> 
> try buying a closed back cab, & either add it to the internal open-back, or use it instead of. I'd suggest a plywood cab, for the most part. Marshall uses MDF for the rear panel baffle, which tames the mid-range. Some people like to trade it out w/ ply & get that bark, that it provides.
> 
> Lots of things to try. It just depends, I know you do your show & try to keep it simple, so you probably have to compromise for that. Recording? If you are releasing it to showcase your act as a promo? I wouldn't compromise, & find what works best for you.


I concur.

I really like the sound of open-back combos, but for recording rock and metal, closed-back is the way to go. Even then, recording is an uphill climb, but at least you're eliminating one source of frustration that is easy to control for.


----------



## Michael Roe

I think for recording the biggest thing you have to remember is: What you like in the room may not be what works for the song/mix. For instance, I own a few PRS S2 guitars and I think they sound great in the room. Recording, they seem to never work. I will most always choose a different guitar. Even a strat sometimes with a pedal can sound better than my trusty in the room Ibanez w/humbuckers. My PRS guitars always just sound bland. To me, LPs almost always work. I'm the same way with speakers. In the room I don't like V30's but for recording they seem to work very well.


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

I mean, assuming we mean close mic'ing, wouldn't you have to put your ear right up to the damn speaker where the mic would be to hear what you'd be recording? On volume 10 or whatever, no less? 

Somebody, for those who like spending money, makes a robot arm that can move a mic around and is controlled from a computer. So you could have amp/mic in a closet, and be at your desk moving the mic around with this thing to find the sweet spot.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing said:


> I mean, assuming we mean close mic'ing, wouldn't you have to put your ear right up to the damn speaker where the mic would be to hear what you'd be recording? On volume 10 or whatever, no less?
> 
> Somebody, for those who like spending money, makes a robot arm that can move a mic around and is controlled from a computer. So you could have amp/mic in a closet, and be at your desk moving the mic around with this thing to find the sweet spot.


you can use noise cancelling headphones...

you don't need the amp on 10. just find the sweet spot, although, that can still be very loud. Once the amp gets so loud, it hits a threshold & sound starts compressing, & you get more saturation, up to a point, until sound starts degrading.

There's a fine line in there, that will be the sound you want. It is subjective, so, listen w/ your ears, to the sound coming through the console.

Through the console... That's what Michael is referring to. There's a difference between cab/room sound vs mic/room/console sound. You are mic'ing for the latter, as that's what will be heard by the end user, the listener...

That's why mixing w/ reverb is also an art. Many people mix the reverb to the room, but, they need to mix the reverb to the recording. Mixing for the room, will only be optimal in that room. Change rooms & the reverb is no longer as intended.


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

Noise cancelling headphones are clever if I ever do an amp recording again. 

Not sure exactly what you mean about reverb. I wouldn't record with it at all...record dry, add it in mix. 

Unless that's what you meant in which case I'm still confused...ideally you're in a treated mix space where you can trust how it sounds in that room, with proofing on additional systems to get the best average of what it sounds like everywhere.


----------



## Seventh Son

AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing said:


> Funnily enough, even with the am SIMS the sm57 is kind "eh" for me. Too much...I dunno...upper mid concentration. I have fizz problems too in addition to mud (if by fizz we mean the ever-present "shhhhhh" with chords when any significant amount of gain is present). You can EQ a surprising amount of THAT out too before it starts to hurt the tone.
> 
> With a real amp I have literally spent WEEKS tweaking knobs/moving mics etc. to get a good tone ( a few hours or so a day), before giving up and recording. At least with a sim you can do it all from the desktop and hear the recorded tone instantly.
> 
> I can't remember which virtual mics I settled on with my last project but I know it wasn't the 57.
> 
> I'm not saying the DSL40c can't do good tones at high volumes, I'm saying the particular thing I'm usually after is not what it does ("so why did you buy it?" Cause it was an affordable, decent sounding, portable Marshall). Best way I can describe is, the dominant frequency I'm usually after in my guitar tones for rhyhm, that is, the frequency that really dominates or punches through the mix for guitars, is lower that what the amp, or at least the amp in combination with my guitars, wants it to be. I'm usually after that kind of powerful, middy tone, and the DSL +my guitars (almost always on bridge pickups...neck not really right for my types of rhythm tones) dominates in a very "pointy" range...maybe 3500+ HZ, where it's all upper mids and treble. Again, maybe it's the guitars/pickups (LP has a JB/Jazz, SG I believe 57 classics - factory everything 2017 standard model), cause even with the sims I was fighting that. "So why did you buy those guitars?" I thought I liked those tones...at the time.


An LP sounds like the best choice for the tone you’re describing. It sounds like you’re going after something like Kiss, Thin Lizzy, or Led Zeppelin. If yes, then it doesn’t get better than the Les Paul: low action, flat fretboard, short scale, large mass.

I think the DSL line is a touch more modern sounding than, say, the JCM 800, but when you push them to high volumes like I did, they do sound very nice.

In my experience, recording also with my pro-level 6100LM, which is very capable if the JCM 800 thing, fizz and mud are universal challenges in recording distorted guitars with close-miking. It would help a lot if you added a close-back cab, but there’s obviously more to it than just the gear.


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

Usually a little more modern than those tones...think 80s hard rock and later.


----------



## BftGibson

been screwing around at home recording lately..here is open back cab capture..Fender Pro Reverb & Bug v22..pic's of mic set up are shown. Got some more mixing to do..but learning a lot lately since giving it a shot...


----------



## Seventh Son

Here's something interesting I want to share with you that will show you why I have been chasing my own tail all this time and getting so frustrated with close-miking.

Exhibit A


Exhibit B


Exhibit C


The mic placements are described in the titles. Recorded with an SM57 and my DSL15C with an MX112 extension cab, both with Vintage 30 speakers, all EQ at noon, and volume at 3 (triode mode).

Compared to the room recording in Exhibit C, the close-miked sound in Exhibit A sounds like absolute s**t. It's really noticeable if you listen through a pair of headphones.

No matter what mic you use, where you place it, as long as the mic is in the direct line of the speaker's output and anywhere near the speaker, that's what the mic will pick up. I have no idea how you could ever get the sound from Exhibit C by close-miking. The amount of EQ-ing in the box would have to be extreme, to say the least, to get it near what the room mic picked up, which is a natural, tight tone that actually sounds like an electric guitar as we know it.


----------



## Michael Roe

I wouldn't get all frustrated over micing a cab.
Just get a loadbox and some good IRs and be done with it. So much easier!
Sometimes a room is just bad no matter what you use to capture the cab.
BTW, I wouldn't call your Exhibit C a room mic but more of a distant mic. I used a similar position when making the IRs for zombiecabs. I call it the "adding punch" or "wall of sound mic" to add with at least two other close mics. One being a ribbon or large diaphragm mic in the center and then a 57 or the like at about cap/edge. Both of these about one inch off of grill. If it still sounds fizzy then use a different speaker IR.


----------



## DBi5

Seventh Son said:


> A natural, tight tone that actually sounds like an electric guitar as we know it.



What guitar(s), PC/laptop, AI and plugins are you using?


----------



## Seventh Son

DBI5 said:


> What guitar(s), PC/laptop, AI and plugins are you using?


Dave Murray Strat USA
PreSonus Firestudio Mobile
DSL15C + MX112 cab (both with V30s)
SM57


----------



## SmokeyDopey

Seventh Son said:


> Here's something interesting I want to share with you that will show you why I have been chasing my own tail all this time and getting so frustrated with close-miking.
> 
> Exhibit A
> 
> 
> Exhibit B
> 
> 
> Exhibit C
> 
> 
> The mic placements are described in the titles. Recorded with an SM57 and my DSL15C with an MX112 extension cab, both with Vintage 30 speakers, all EQ at noon, and volume at 3 (triode mode).
> 
> Compared to the room recording in Exhibit C, the close-miked sound in Exhibit A sounds like absolute s**t. It's really noticeable if you listen through a pair of headphones.
> 
> No matter what mic you use, where you place it, as long as the mic is in the direct line of the speaker's output and anywhere near the speaker, that's what the mic will pick up. I have no idea how you could ever get the sound from Exhibit C by close-miking. The amount of EQ-ing in the box would have to be extreme, to say the least, to get it near what the room mic picked up, which is a natural, tight tone that actually sounds like an electric guitar as we know it.




Did you play around with blending close mic + room mic?
And if you double track the guitars a cool thing to do is pan the room mics opposite from each other:

Guitar 1 close mic panned L, room mic panned R
Guitar 2 close mic panned R, room mic panned L

Another cool and sometimes useful tool (if the room tone isn't outstanding for example) is not using the actual room mic in the mix, but using it just to trigger a reverb and/or delay


----------



## SmokeyDopey

DBI5 said:


> What guitar(s), PC/laptop, AI and plugins are you using?



Hey man, good to see you around here


----------



## Seventh Son

SmokeyDopey said:


> Did you play around with blending close mic + room mic?
> And if you double track the guitars a cool thing to do is pan the room mics opposite from each other:
> 
> Guitar 1 close mic panned L, room mic panned R
> Guitar 2 close mic panned R, room mic panned L
> 
> Another cool and sometimes useful tool (if the room tone isn't outstanding for example) is not using the actual room mic in the mix, but using it just to trigger a reverb and/or delay


Those are all great suggestions. I have done some quick preliminary testing with blending the two mics. The close mic adds a little extra presence, without muddying things up too much, but I had both mix at roughly the same volume. I will do some further testing and see what happens when I bring the fader on the close mic down.

I was listening to the _Killers_ album by Maiden last night in the car, and after switching back to my recording of "The Trooper," I noticed how similar the tones were (I could not tell the difference in terms of the midrange), so I know I am definitely on the right track. Now is it just a matter of finding out whether to bring in the close mic and how much of it to mix in. I think the productions I revere most (the Birch productions with Maiden) all have the two guitars clearly separated, with just a bit of bleed on the opposite channel, so I intend to stick with hard panning. I like it separated like that, but don't mind a fair amount of bleed, if I were producing a full band. The bleed actually does something similar as the left-right panning trick you talked about, but does so naturally, plus it also adds a bit of natural reverb and delay.

Once I have refined the formula, then I will move on to looking into a nicer mic (probably a condenser) for the distant mic. Does anyone here have any experience with the Rode NT1A or the new NT1? Does the brand and model really matter for distant-miking guitar cabs?


----------



## Dogs of Doom

try this...

mic close & distant.

put the close on the left & then put the distant to the right (hard panning both)

Download this M/S decoder:

https://www.zoom-na.com/products/field-video-recording/field-recording/h6-handy-recorder/downloads

look for this:




whichever one matches your computer. running the stereo track, in your DAW, open the plug-in, in the effects rack. Now, change the blend of the L/R (M/S) & see what kind of results you get...


----------



## BftGibson

been mic'ing mxl dt2 close & 1 3' away condenser) Blue Spark & MXL 990 for bigger open Rythym

close MXL dt2(dual capsule-blend able) & mxl993 on 45 both on grill for that close mic tight capture

soon as got this figured out..captured my sound better than the studio..able to record at home now..saving a lot $$$$

have used expensive mic's..prefer these

now have 5 preamps..that is where the real dif came

JoeMeek 6Q
GAP 73 mkiii
JoeMeek Vc3 V2
VTB-(tube)
DBX286s

they each have a dif flavor...soon as i got the pramps...the recording was so much easier..made this lil rack...they come out as good as the super vintage studios i have recorded at.Still learning to record..vocals have been a challenge..got the guitars down pretty good[/ATTACH]


----------



## Michael Roe

I'm really worried about what @Seventh Son is going to do once he nails that Maiden tone. Add in that 2nd guitar, Bass and drums and then it all changes.
If you try and mold the rest of the band around a guitar tone, Good luck!
Always best to start with drums and bass then add vocals then guitar. It is easier to sculp a guitar tone around what you got then to make the guitar #1.

@BftGibson , I went down that road before with preamps. It can be very expensive. I agree, it does make a big difference. I decided after doing some A/bing that it was much cheaper and easier using mic pre VSTs to add that color. Like, Slate or Plugin Alliance vsts. Another really cheap one which I found recently is the RM-2 by Audio Assault. The EQ on that one is very nice as well.
I have found that one of the best investments for recording is to get the Waves API EQs (550 series). Not only are they exceptional on guitar but are phenomenal on drums.


----------



## BftGibson

Michael Roe said:


> I'm really worried about what @Seventh Son is going to do once he nails that Maiden tone. Add in that 2nd guitar, Bass and drums and then it all changes.
> If you try and mold the rest of the band around a guitar tone, Good luck!
> Always best to start with drums and bass then add vocals then guitar. It is easier to sculp a guitar tone around what you got then to make the guitar #1.
> 
> @BftGibson , I went down that road before with preamps. It can be very expensive. I agree, it does make a big difference. I decided after doing some A/bing that it was much cheaper and easier using mic pre VSTs to add that color. Like, Slate or Plugin Alliance vsts. Another really cheap one which I found recently is the RM-2 by Audio Assault. The EQ on that one is very nice as well.
> I have found that one of the best investments for recording is to get the Waves API EQs (550 series). Not only are they exceptional on guitar but are phenomenal on drums.


yeah..got it done on the cheap..my main thing is..all originals..i just ask the mic & pre to capture what is coming out speakers. have learned to depend on the certain pre's & mic's for each part of song_. The main thing i have learned(man i have wasted years ..lol)..get it right at capture...track it right..& leave headroom. basically have it layered right from the door...it is so much easier. 

your so right about the plugins...have T racks & am in love with 1176 & Dyna Mu _


----------



## Seventh Son

Michael Roe said:


> I'm really worried about what @Seventh Son is going to do once he nails that Maiden tone. Add in that 2nd guitar, Bass and drums and then it all changes.
> If you try and mold the rest of the band around a guitar tone, Good luck!
> Always best to start with drums and bass then add vocals then guitar. It is easier to sculp a guitar tone around what you got then to make the guitar #1.
> 
> @BftGibson , I went down that road before with preamps. It can be very expensive. I agree, it does make a big difference. I decided after doing some A/bing that it was much cheaper and easier using mic pre VSTs to add that color. Like, Slate or Plugin Alliance vsts. Another really cheap one which I found recently is the RM-2 by Audio Assault. The EQ on that one is very nice as well.
> I have found that one of the best investments for recording is to get the Waves API EQs (550 series). Not only are they exceptional on guitar but are phenomenal on drums.


I understand the concern, but I'm not trying to nail the exact tone. Just something in the ballpark. My problem all along was the midrange. I had too much bass and a ridiculous amount of fizzy top end from close-miking the speaker. If you listened to my most recently posted tracks, you'll know what I mean. The tracks are extremely eye opening.

Anyway, I listened to a bunch of Maiden stuff today in the car and then switched over to my recording with just a distant mic at about 6, ear height (just like in one of the previous tracks I posted), and it was a seamless transition. My recording sounded just as natural as Maiden's stuff, particularly the _Killers_ album. Now I just have to learn how to refine the formula. I'd like to try a close mic and a distant mic next. Even if that doesn't work out, I'm happy with just an SM57 put up in the room. It's way more natural and thicker sounding than anything I ever got from close-miking. Which again begs the question: How the f**k did the recording profession got so hung up on close-miking, when the results on guitar are so predictably awful, time and time again?

Case in point, read this quote from an article on Guitar.com.
"_For many engineers, a simple one-mic technique gives them all the recorded electric guitar sound they need. Dynamic types, such as the ubiquitous Shure SM57, are ideal for capturing loud sounds, as they can handle high SPLs._"

Another example: This excerpt from recordingmag.com.
"_Miking up an amp would seem to be the most straightforward thing of all—so many engineers, if asked what they usually do, say “Just stick a Shure SM57 an inch in front of the speaker and you’re done!” In fact, this is exactly what you see in most clubs/on most stages, and even a lot of the time in the studio as well. To be fair, it does work just fine a lot of the time. But if you’re looking for a more nuanced guitar sound, or just want the absolute best tone you can get for each specific track, then miking options get a lot more interesting than just the “old reliable” 57._"


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

Probably depends on what youre after specifically. You often need that close mic for “cut” in a denser mix where only having a more distant mic would get you lost/buried.


----------



## WellBurnTheSky

Seventh Son said:


> Which again begs the question: How the f**k did the recording profession got so hung up on close-miking, when the results on guitar are so predictably awful, time and time again?
> 
> Case in point, read this quote from an article on Guitar.com.
> "_For many engineers, a simple one-mic technique gives them all the recorded electric guitar sound they need. Dynamic types, such as the ubiquitous Shure SM57, are ideal for capturing loud sounds, as they can handle high SPLs._"
> 
> Another example: This excerpt from recordingmag.com.
> "_Miking up an amp would seem to be the most straightforward thing of all—so many engineers, if asked what they usually do, say “Just stick a Shure SM57 an inch in front of the speaker and you’re done!” In fact, this is exactly what you see in most clubs/on most stages, and even a lot of the time in the studio as well. To be fair, it does work just fine a lot of the time. But if you’re looking for a more nuanced guitar sound, or just want the absolute best tone you can get for each specific track, then miking options get a lot more interesting than just the “old reliable” 57._"


Again, you're looking at it the wrong way: because it doesn't work for YOU, in ONE SITUATION, trying to achieve ONE PARTICULAR TONE, doesn't mean it plain sucks. Just that it doesn't work for you in that particular situation, trying to achieve one particular tone (in isolation, at that).
While, as all the others also pointed out, in many cases, close-miking with a 57 is a great *starting point*, definitely one you can work with at least. Because it provides you with what you need to cut through a dense mix: presence, and a big focus on mids.
Again, in many cases, how a source sounds in isolation is close to irrelevant, compared to how it sits in the mix.
And again, I'd advise you to check out some multitracks for famous songs, you'd be very surprised at how some revered guitar parts sound in isolation.
Check out the isolated guitar tracks for some Queen or Van Halen tunes for instance: guitar doesn't sound as full or smooth as you'd think it does (the isolated guitar tracks for Queen's Killer Queen are a fine example of this, I also was surprised at how fizzy EVH's tracks sound in isolation on VH1). But in the mix ? Good God does it kick major ass.

Amusingly, what you're saying about the 57 works pretty much exactly the same for classic Marshall tones. Does a 2203 in isolation sound as smooth, saturated and ear-pleasing as modern derivatives ? Hell no. But in a mix, it cuts like a laser and often sounds big, bold, authoritative...in a word, killer. Again, context.


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

I found you can high shelf down a lot of the fizz pretty aggressively without it affecting the tone.


----------



## BftGibson

something i been doing. Where in the room does it sound great? I put a condenser there. For that full-tight capture on the grill a dynamic. It gives me the choice at mix time. Throughout the song i will use many dif blends of the mics. The ears really are the judge. Mic placement is key & then the pre amp. I noticed a huge jump in control with the dif pre's. The Neve style are fantastic with a pre & post ability to dial in hotter into post or clean into post. Learning to record lately almost has all my pedals not used now that i heard that tone coming out the amp. The clearer the better even on leads. I noticed the more you do to a signal ..in a way it deteriorates & sometimes maybe never capture it again. Sure has made playing fun again. Great guitar into great amp..just choose which one for the music being done.Let the technique be the star of the show not the gear


----------



## WellBurnTheSky

Fizz isn't an issue once you're in the mix, it actually contributes to cutting through the mix. 

Exhibit A:



By itself, there's little to no low end, and it's pretty fizzy (even though verb tends to smooth it out a bit).
In the mix, it's the sound of a 21 year old guy reinventing electric guitar.


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

My experience has been that thats true to some degree but at a certain point it becomes high end mud and can compete with cymbals/hi hats.


----------



## Seventh Son

WellBurnTheSky said:


> Again, you're looking at it the wrong way: because it doesn't work for YOU, in ONE SITUATION, trying to achieve ONE PARTICULAR TONE, doesn't mean it plain sucks. Just that it doesn't work for you in that particular situation, trying to achieve one particular tone (in isolation, at that).
> While, as all the others also pointed out, in many cases, close-miking with a 57 is a great *starting point*, definitely one you can work with at least. Because it provides you with what you need to cut through a dense mix: presence, and a big focus on mids.
> Again, in many cases, how a source sounds in isolation is close to irrelevant, compared to how it sits in the mix.
> And again, I'd advise you to check out some multitracks for famous songs, you'd be very surprised at how some revered guitar parts sound in isolation.
> Check out the isolated guitar tracks for some Queen or Van Halen tunes for instance: guitar doesn't sound as full or smooth as you'd think it does (the isolated guitar tracks for Queen's Killer Queen are a fine example of this, I also was surprised at how fizzy EVH's tracks sound in isolation on VH1). But in the mix ? Good God does it kick major ass.
> 
> Amusingly, what you're saying about the 57 works pretty much exactly the same for classic Marshall tones. Does a 2203 in isolation sound as smooth, saturated and ear-pleasing as modern derivatives ? Hell no. But in a mix, it cuts like a laser and often sounds big, bold, authoritative...in a word, killer. Again, context.


I agree that the Van Halen track you posted above sounds fizzier than your typical classic metal guitar tone. I'd classify Van Halen's tone as '80s hair metal, more American than British sounding, and the amount of fizz is just enough for artistic purposes, but it's not the case where everything is just pure fizz. Another similar example is Slash's tone with Guns'n'Roses. It's more of a rock tone, with a dialed back midrange, but the midrange is still there, helping the guitars poke through, whether in isolation or in the mix. However, compared to the tracks I posted on the previous page with a close-miked Marshall, SM57, all knobs at noon, Van Halen's "fizz" is a far cry from the fizzy garbage I get when I put an SM57 anywhere on the speaker.

If that is what a close-miked guitar speaker sounds, then I am just at a loss how people get decent sounding tracks with that approach. I can't claim to have a ton of experience, but I remember that whenever I tried recording guitar amps close-miked with SM57s, it always sounded thin like that. I had a band back in the '90s. Between my band mate and me, we had a range of expensive guitars, we both played expensive Marshall half-stacks, and still, whenever it was time to record, nothing worked, until we just gave up and placed an SM58 in the upper corner of the room and just recorded the whole band with one mic. My current experience of revisiting this topic over the past three years mirrors my early frustrations with close-miking.

Here's another example, since you mentioned Queen.

I find the majority of what I hear in this track very midrange-y. Nothing earth shattering about the track, but it sounds just like I expect a distorted rock guitar to sound.

Now compare that to my close-miked raw track on the previous page and you'll see why I am questioning close-miking as a viable method.


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

Im right there with you. Ive never recorded great tones that way (if its the only source, that is). Id like to know their secret.


----------



## DBi5

SmokeyDopey said:


> Hey man, good to see you around here



Smokey! You made me jump (sneaking up on an old Coyote like that). 

Good to see you're still sharing your recording studio knowledge and experience with other members of the forum.


----------



## DBi5

BftGibson said:


> Great guitar into great amp.. just choose which one for the music being done.



Agreed.

The little DSL combos would be the last thing I would choose to record Iron Maiden riffs.


----------



## Seventh Son

DBI5 said:


> Agreed.
> 
> The little DSL combos would be the last thing I would choose to record Iron Maiden riffs.


Could you elaborate on this? I am using the DSL15C with an MX112 extension cab, both with Vintage 30 speakers, and miking the extension cab when I'm close-miking.

I have also tried bigger amps, more specifically, my 6100LM with a stock 1960A cab. Same results. Nothing to write home about.


----------



## Seventh Son

I found this interesting bit on Max Norman and the recording sessions from the _Blizzard_ album.

_GW: What was Randy’s guitar rig for the sessions, and how did you record it?

NORMAN: His amp setup was a Marshall stack, with two 4x12 cabs. We had four Shure SM57s right over the voice coils on four of the speakers—two speakers on the top and two on the bottom, catty cornered. The center of the microphone was right on the voice coil edge, on a tangent, facing right at it. Then we had a [Neumann] U82 sitting about eight feet in front of the stack, at the top of the steps and another U87 about 20 feet further back from that. Most of the time all those mics would be mixed down to one track. But sometimes we’d print stereo tracks if we wanted to keep the ambience separate._

I wonder how many of those four SM57s he actually ended up using. It sounds like he used all of them.

For the full article, go to https://www.guitarworld.com/features/randy-rhoads-blizzard-king.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

that is a unique setup...

Randy used Altec speakers. Max said he was using a variac, & he had a full stack (stacked), in a stone room, facing into a stairwell...
____________

NORMAN Randy’s amps were set up in a stone room underneath the control room; they were facing into the stone steps that led down to the stone room.

GW Did he use basically the same guitar rig for both _Blizzard of Ozz and Diary of a Madman?_

NORMAN Yes, and it was a pretty advanced rig for the time, I suppose. He’d read somewhere about using the Variac [_a variable power supply that can lower supply voltages and cause power tubes to saturate at lower levels_]. He had a 100-watt Marshall amp, and we dropped the voltage down to 90 or 92 volts. That smokes up the distortion, gives it a creamier edge. And of course a lot of the effects came from his pedal board, the “chip pan.” [_Ozzy gave this name to the setup because it created so much hiss and noise that it sounded like French fries—which the British call “chips” – sizzling in a pan_. ]
______

all things to be considered. Think of putting a full stack in a castle. Aiming the stack into the stairwell, makes for a different acoustic environment. You could almost think of blasting a stack into a bathroom, or small hallway, but, now, add the stairs & a high ceiling. Hard to imagine, the distance mic at the top of the stairs, & another in the room, some 12ft away, upstairs. Who knows the size of the room upstairs? What treatment on any of the rooms, stairs, etc.?

When he says "_right on the voice coil edge, on a tangent, facing right at it" _sounds like he is saying he is angling the mic straight into the coil, from the dustcap edge. W/ Celestion speakers, that would be nothing but fizz...


----------



## Seventh Son

Dogs of Doom said:


> that is a unique setup...
> 
> Randy used Altec speakers. Max said he was using a variac, & he had a full stack (stacked), in a stone room, facing into a stairwell...
> ____________
> 
> NORMAN Randy’s amps were set up in a stone room underneath the control room; they were facing into the stone steps that led down to the stone room.
> 
> GW Did he use basically the same guitar rig for both _Blizzard of Ozz and Diary of a Madman?_
> 
> NORMAN Yes, and it was a pretty advanced rig for the time, I suppose. He’d read somewhere about using the Variac [_a variable power supply that can lower supply voltages and cause power tubes to saturate at lower levels_]. He had a 100-watt Marshall amp, and we dropped the voltage down to 90 or 92 volts. That smokes up the distortion, gives it a creamier edge. And of course a lot of the effects came from his pedal board, the “chip pan.” [_Ozzy gave this name to the setup because it created so much hiss and noise that it sounded like French fries—which the British call “chips” – sizzling in a pan_. ]
> ______
> 
> all things to be considered. Think of putting a full stack in a castle. Aiming the stack into the stairwell, makes for a different acoustic environment. You could almost think of blasting a stack into a bathroom, or small hallway, but, now, add the stairs & a high ceiling. Hard to imagine, the distance mic at the top of the stairs, & another in the room, some 12ft away, upstairs. Who knows the size of the room upstairs? What treatment on any of the rooms, stairs, etc.?
> 
> When he says "_right on the voice coil edge, on a tangent, facing right at it" _sounds like he is saying he is angling the mic straight into the coil, from the dustcap edge. W/ Celestion speakers, that would be nothing but fizz...


Good points. I tried mixing a distant mic (6 feet, ear height) with a close mic (cap edge) and it worked really well. Room dimensions and building materials aside—which do make a difference, so, I'm not disagreeing with you—what I got out of the interview with Max Norman, is that it is not that unusual to use distant and room mics, despite the fact that almost most people these days rely exclusively on close-miking.

I recall reading somewhere, long time ago, that close-miking was a distinctly American thing at one point. This sounds plausible, since a more scooped tone is generally associated with sounding more American. So it would make sense that British engineers would employ techniques that emphasize the midrange, and American engineers would employ techniques that emphasize bass and top end.

I still can't believe that Max used four SM57s on the stack, which, if they all ended up being combined on the final track, along with the room mics, would be pretty amazing.


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

Hmmm. I guess I dont think of the close mic sound as scooped...i think you get overwhelming mids and treble


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Seventh Son said:


> Good points. I tried mixing a distant mic (6 feet, ear height) with a close mic (cap edge) and it worked really well. Room dimensions and building materials aside—which do make a difference, so, I'm not disagreeing with you—what I got out of the interview with Max Norman, is that it is not that unusual to use distant and room mics, despite the fact that almost most people these days rely exclusively on close-miking.
> 
> I recall reading somewhere, long time ago, that close-miking was a distinctly American thing at one point. This sounds plausible, since a more scooped tone is generally associated with sounding more American. So it would make sense that British engineers would employ techniques that emphasize the midrange, and American engineers would employ techniques that emphasize bass and top end.
> 
> I still can't believe that Max used four SM57s on the stack, which, if they all ended up being combined on the final track, along with the room mics, would be pretty amazing.


more to consider:

SM57 mic's of 1981, are not the same as SM57 today. Today's mic's are nowhere the quality of the original...

Altec speaker is more of a hi-fi speaker for midrange, not necessarily a guitar speaker. The mid's & highs are a lot smoother than any Celestion.

An A cab, vs a B cab will have different sounds, based on internal volume & the slight out of phase of the A cab (internally), top section. While the sounds are more than 90% identical, those differences w/ the remaining couple % add together to make a unique tone.

Because the stone room is an echo chamber w/ varying wall angles (I envision round stones cemented together throughout), close mic'ing will still capture the liveliness of the room, but, nothing like a room mic. The distant mic's probably are capturing a mix of the rear of the cab, along w/ the billowing sounds of the stairwell, & then the upper room, capturing the distance.

Back then, w/ tape & mixing consoles, you could not fine tune phase. It was +/- & no other adjustment. You couldn't slide tracks to lock them closer. You would simply mix things together, until you got the desired blend.


----------



## Seventh Son

I repeated my recent experiment, but this time, instead of double tracking, I recorded with both mics at the same time. I also used the DSL15C's internal Vintage 30 in addition to the MX112 cab with a Vintage 30, and lowered the distant mic to chest height, pointing it straight but in the direction of the amp, instead of right past it. Adding the distant mic to the close mic roughly doubles the perceived volume, so there do not appear to be any significant phase issues. Examining the audio waves in GarageBand, I can see that the distant mic is not only slightly delayed, but also has its own thing going on in the sense that it is not simply a duplicated and delayed copy of the close-miked wave, which probably explains why I don't hear a drop from adding the distant mic.
Below are the three raw tracks. All EQ was at noon. No post processing whatsoever.





With the distant mic being slightly lower this time, plus the addition of the open-back combo's speaker, the sound has a bit more of the fizzy bite, but you can still hear how much more mid-dominant and tighter the distant mic is than the close mic. I think the combination sounds best. What do you guys think?


----------



## SmokeyDopey

Seventh Son said:


> I repeated my recent experiment, but this time, instead of double tracking, I recorded with both mics at the same time. I also used the DSL15C's internal Vintage 30 in addition to the MX112 cab with a Vintage 30, and lowered the distant mic to chest height, pointing it straight but in the direction of the amp, instead of right past it. Adding the distant mic to the close mic roughly doubles the perceived volume, so there do not appear to be any significant phase issues. Examining the audio waves in GarageBand, I can see that the distant mic is not only slightly delayed, but also has its own thing going on in the sense that it is not simply a duplicated and delayed copy of the close-miked wave, which probably explains why I don't hear a drop from adding the distant mic.
> Below are the three raw tracks. All EQ was at noon. No post processing whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the distant mic being slightly lower this time, plus the addition of the open-back combo's speaker, the sound has a bit more of the fizzy bite, but you can still hear how much more mid-dominant and tighter the distant mic is than the close mic. I think the combination sounds best. What do you guys think?




Awesome that you are experimenting with more that 1 mic.
On clip 3 I am hearing some phase incoherencies. Can you hear like a tubular quality? As if you were hearing it through a pipe? I suspect the further mic was a bit too close causing some incoherencies.
Note that some have used this type of sound, so it isn't "wrong", but I think it is worth noting.

Have you played with the 2nd mic positioning on the DAW grid? If you adjust by some miliseconds I think you'll notice some drastic changes

If you nudge the 2nd mic back a few miliseconds it will sort of simulate the mic being further away. If you like where that goes try putting the mic a bit further from the cab

Another option is to try to align the 2nd mic to the 1st mic if you really like the 2nd mic's position, but I'm not sure how that can turn out.


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

I am intrigued by the thing about old 57s being better than new ones. That’s never come up anywhere that I’ve read/heard before. Are we sure about this? Is there a marketplace for “early 80s sm57s”?


----------



## Dogs of Doom

I used that plug-in, I pointed you to, above, on the 2 files...

https://voca.ro/a8VLdnBUqPj

to make a stereo track from it...


----------



## Dogs of Doom

AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing said:


> I am intrigued by the thing about old 57s being better than new ones. That’s never come up anywhere that I’ve read/heard before. Are we sure about this? Is there a marketplace for “early 80s sm57s”?


in '84, they started mfgr'ing in Mexico. Before that they were made in USA. By 1989, all mic's were MiM...

The quality went south, along w/ the production...

here's a thread I found real quick:

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/10559-shure-sm57-new-vs-old.html


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Dogs of Doom said:


> I used that plug-in, I pointed you to, above, on the 2 files...
> 
> https://voca.ro/a8VLdnBUqPj
> 
> to make a stereo track from it...


& adding a little reverb:

https://voca.ro/8bzNpZIfYck


----------



## Seventh Son

SmokeyDopey said:


> Awesome that you are experimenting with more that 1 mic.
> On clip 3 I am hearing some phase incoherencies. Can you hear like a tubular quality? As if you were hearing it through a pipe? I suspect the further mic was a bit too close causing some incoherencies.
> Note that some have used this type of sound, so it isn't "wrong", but I think it is worth noting.
> 
> Have you played with the 2nd mic positioning on the DAW grid? If you adjust by some miliseconds I think you'll notice some drastic changes
> 
> If you nudge the 2nd mic back a few miliseconds it will sort of simulate the mic being further away. If you like where that goes try putting the mic a bit further from the cab
> 
> Another option is to try to align the 2nd mic to the 1st mic if you really like the 2nd mic's position, but I'm not sure how that can turn out.


You are absolutely right. I am glad you noticed that.

I tried syncing up the tracks, but their waves are so different that it is hard to tell where one track should be moved to align it with the other. Plus, I figured, if Max Norman recorded on tape with so many mics and got it to sound right without any alignment fixing, I should be fine, too. The distant mic sounds like what I have in my mind. I think that that sound is worth exploring. I wish I could make the close mic alone work and sound more like the distant mic, but that's not happening, and it's just more frustration and going around in circles. I'll try and see how close I can get to the rig without losing that critical midrange that gets buried in lows and mids when you get too close to the speaker. The effect is really noticeable on the riff starting at 1:11 in the first clip above.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Dogs of Doom said:


> in '84, they started mfgr'ing in Mexico. Before that they were made in USA. By 1989, all mic's were MiM...
> 
> The quality went south, along w/ the production...
> 
> here's a thread I found real quick:
> 
> https://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/10559-shure-sm57-new-vs-old.html


here's another, showing the difference in quality...

https://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/threads/old-sm57-vs-new-sm57-wtf.369874/


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

well slap my taint and call me derrick.


----------



## Seventh Son

Revisiting this video, I notice how similar the riffs with just an SM57 in the video sounds to my recordings with just an SM57. It's a very particular sound. Super fizzy, but it seems that is "the sound" of modern metal and people just accept the fizz as part of the sound. I also messed around with other positions on the speaker today, trying out again positions near the surround, and noticed that the further you go out, the more bass build-up there is, making the recordings very uneven between single notes and chords and palm-mutes. Definitely not useable. As you get close to the cap, things balance out again.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

did you listen to those links I posted above?


----------



## Seventh Son

Dogs of Doom said:


> did you listen to those links I posted above?


Yes, I did. It sounds pretty good, but the basic tracks with the distant mic were already good to begin with.

I watched these two videos, where both guys are close-miking and getting really nice tones, even with just an SM57 without the LDC added.




That made me think that I must be doing something wrong and that my problem isn't the gear or the fact that I wasn't using a distant mic.

So, I went back and listened to my tracks with volume comparisons. I really can't think of anything else I am doing wrong, except that I'm not recording loud enough. The fizziness on the DSL15C finally starts going away when channel volume is at 7, ideally above that, and the tracks start sounding nice and full. I am going to have to try recording a whole song with the amp cranked when I have an opportunity to do that. I have a feeling that that is going to be the answer to all my problems.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

ever think that you're just capturing what the DSL is capable of?

Try your techniques w/ the 6100 & closed cab. try w/ the DSL & closed cab.

What I did w/ your tracks is:

download
deleted right side of close-mic & copied right side of distant mic & pasted it to right of close track.

Now, it's a stereo track, close left & distant right.

Now, I use the plug-in, to make a mono center of the close mic & it makes a stereo track of the distant. It then flips polarity of one side. This creates a stereo image when blended w/ the close mic. The l/r of the distant start cancelling frequencies from the close mic, if the polarity is off. Because each side are polar opposites to each other, they attack different frequencies from the mono close mic, creating a stereo image. The more you turn up the distant mic, the greater the stereo effect, & in essence, the more room sound you get. The close mic, still keeps the sound centered & direct, while mixing w/ the distant sounds.

You use phase to create a stereo image, w/o the problems of phase cancellation, as Smokey noted, in the one that you just mixed together. You can even turn the track mono w/o adverse effects. That's the beauty of using that technique. This is utilized by mid/side recording, but, can also be used accordingly, in this situation, w/ different results, but, good nonetheless.

It sounds bigger, than simply merging files.


----------



## Seventh Son

Dogs of Doom said:


> ever think that you're just capturing what the DSL is capable of?
> 
> Try your techniques w/ the 6100 & closed cab. try w/ the DSL & closed cab.


That's a great question. Before I attempt to answer it, let me just add again, just in case you thought I was still trying to record the combo, that I've been using the DSL15C with an MX112 closed-back cab with a Vintage 30. But that of course says nothing about the possible importance of the size of the cab.

To your question, yes, I have considered that possibility. In fact, just this morning, as I was driving, I revisited my recordings of the DSL under different volume settings, and compared them to Maiden's professional reference tracks, just as reference. The car is a good place to compare tracks, as it can be very revealing of flaws that aren't apparent on the systems. At the end of the day, I am not quite sure what to think of the tracks recorded with volume on 8 and 10. Compared to lower settings, they sound great on studio monitors, headphones, and my home stereo. In the car, they sound much darker (one could also argue warmer) and a bit congested. It's hard to say, since I don't know what the amp is supposed to sound like at its best. I don't have a lot of experience recording successfully, and don't know tube amps well enough to know what to aim for, which is why I am on here to get help.

After listening to the tracks recorded at different volumes, you, for example, through the amp sounded best with volume at 7, right before the thickening kicks in. My guess would be that this is a sign of the power amp stage kicking in. Interestingly, we all talk about tube amps and how important it is to get power amp distortion and "tubes cooking." I've even heard people say that Marshalls don't sound good until they are fully cranked, or that the louder you play a Marshall, the better it sounds. As another example, a YouTube reviewer of the DSL20CR complained that the amp doesn't start sounding good until it's "real loud". And yet, you liked my DSL15C best on 7, right before the tipping point. So, this is why this is so complicated to figure out.

One more thing. You mentioned the 6100LM with the 1960A that I have. I have tried that in the past. Granted, it was years and years ago, but I remember running into the same set of frustrations with thin and fizzy, unnatural tone. Both my bandmate and I had the 6100LM. I don't think we pushed those amps as hard as we could have, but we did try different volumes, as much as we could get away volume-wise at the time, and we still weren't quite happy with the results.

Finally, on the topic of the DSL, it was reasonable of you to question the capability of the amp, and whether I may have reached the limits of its potential. However, consider that in one of the videos I posted above, the guy from CSGuitars demonstrates miking an AVT and gets great results from it. If he can get a good tone from an AVT, surely I should be able to get satisfactory results with a DSL.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

well, there is a difference between getting great results & reaching a particular target goal, such as matching the Iron Maiden recordings.

1 thing to note. Notice, in the file mix I did w/ the plug-in, I think the sound is better than what you posted, in those files, but, it also sounds nothing like your stated goal, which might make you dismiss it, w/o hearing it through objectively.

So, while the sound is good, & shows that, your basic tracks are good & can be worked w/, it misses the Maiden mark.

While there's nothing wrong w/ either/or (chasing the mark vs getting a new great sound), sometimes you have to realize that, there's a certain point that the gear will get & that's it. That's why, even many let's say, Maiden cover bands do not get the sound like Maiden, just as many Zeppelin covers do not get the Zep sound.

As mentioned throughout this thread, there's also the difference between in the room sound & through the recording deck sound.

Listen to VHI. Then go find his isolated tracks. Listen to Ozzy, Blizzard of Ozz & listen to the iso tracks.

Notice how different the iso tracks sound, compared to the mixed production. You can hear the core sound, but... then, look at your work. When you listen w/ frustration to these near misses/failures, do you hear that core sound? Is it as close as the iso tracks by VH & RR? Or even the Murray/Smith tracks?

1 thing that is hard, is to get a objective tone while you are playing. Notice that, when you listen back to your playing, you don't think it sounds like it did when you played it? This applies to even, if you get the sound recorded perfect. You're not only hearing, but you are feeling. You get the nuance of the pick scraping the strings on every picked note.

When listening live (as you play), you do not have the same scrutinizing listening vantage point. Everything is on the fly. Listening to a recording, nothing is on the fly & you are examining it under a microscope. Your hearing of the live performance, your ears filter things in/out. The recording does not discriminate & you are subjected to listening to everything w/o the filter.

The same thing goes w/ photography. When you experience things in the live, you will go, "wow, look at that, take a picture!" Then, when you take the picture, you notice all the flaws, the clutter, things that ruin that good scene. Then you don't want to share it, because the capture does not discriminate. While your eyes focus on whatever it is that caught your eye, the camera doesn't have tunnel vision.


----------



## Michael Roe

Your DSL 15 is probably going to be one of the most fizziest Marshall amps that were made. I know, I use to own one! That amp has two things going for it to put it in that category.
1) The lead ch is the higher gain version of the DSL = Fizzy!
2) That amp uses 6V6 power tubes which are very mid scooped compared to EL34s = Fizzy!

If I were going for a Maiden tone and owned a DSL15 and a 6100 and had to choose one?
Well, that is a no-brainer....The 6100 on ch 2 "B" would probably do the trick.
If I remember correctly the guys from Maiden used the JMP-1 preamp at a latter date. That is a very, not fizzy sounding preamp!
I have owned both the 6100 and JMP-1 and would say that they are similar in tone with the 6100 having a little more warmth to it.
I think you are beating a dead horse here. You are just not going to achieve that tone with a DSL15.


----------



## Seventh Son

Dogs of Doom said:


> well, there is a difference between getting great results & reaching a particular target goal, such as matching the Iron Maiden recordings.
> 
> 1 thing to note. Notice, in the file mix I did w/ the plug-in, I think the sound is better than what you posted, in those files, but, it also sounds nothing like your stated goal, which might make you dismiss it, w/o hearing it through objectively.
> 
> So, while the sound is good, & shows that, your basic tracks are good & can be worked w/, it misses the Maiden mark.
> 
> While there's nothing wrong w/ either/or (chasing the mark vs getting a new great sound), sometimes you have to realize that, there's a certain point that the gear will get & that's it. That's why, even many let's say, Maiden cover bands do not get the sound like Maiden, just as many Zeppelin covers do not get the Zep sound.
> 
> As mentioned throughout this thread, there's also the difference between in the room sound & through the recording deck sound.
> 
> Listen to VHI. Then go find his isolated tracks. Listen to Ozzy, Blizzard of Ozz & listen to the iso tracks.
> 
> Notice how different the iso tracks sound, compared to the mixed production. You can hear the core sound, but... then, look at your work. When you listen w/ frustration to these near misses/failures, do you hear that core sound? Is it as close as the iso tracks by VH & RR? Or even the Murray/Smith tracks?
> 
> 1 thing that is hard, is to get a objective tone while you are playing. Notice that, when you listen back to your playing, you don't think it sounds like it did when you played it? This applies to even, if you get the sound recorded perfect. You're not only hearing, but you are feeling. You get the nuance of the pick scraping the strings on every picked note.
> 
> When listening live (as you play), you do not have the same scrutinizing listening vantage point. Everything is on the fly. Listening to a recording, nothing is on the fly & you are examining it under a microscope. Your hearing of the live performance, your ears filter things in/out. The recording does not discriminate & you are subjected to listening to everything w/o the filter.
> 
> The same thing goes w/ photography. When you experience things in the live, you will go, "wow, look at that, take a picture!" Then, when you take the picture, you notice all the flaws, the clutter, things that ruin that good scene. Then you don't want to share it, because the capture does not discriminate. While your eyes focus on whatever it is that caught your eye, the camera doesn't have tunnel vision.


Not to diminish anything you said, but before I comment further on your post, let me just say again that I am not looking to copy a certain tone. Sure, I like the _Piece of Mind_ guitar tone. Of all I've ever heard, it's one of my most favorite. It has a great midrange and is nice and clean/tight in the bottom end, again mostly due to the emphasized midrange. But I also like many other Maiden tones on their records. As I like the _Blizzard of Ozz_ tones. Or the tones on certain Accept albums. And many others that share the same sonic blueprint.

Moreover, I may be in a minority, but I never thought that isolated tracks sound that different from the mix. When I hear isolated tracks from _Piece of Mind_ or _Powerslave_ or _Blizzard of Ozz_, for example, I still hear the same guitar tone that I heard in the mix. I do not subscribe to the Internet theory that something can sound like garbage in isolation but great in the mix. I guess if you (not you personally) consider the sound of an isolated guitar musically unpleasant, then you will subscribe to that belief, but I do not. I think it's a fallacy that overcomplicates the simple fact that the whole is still made up of individual instruments that exist in their own space. Even as I am listening to a mix, I can mentally isolate the guitars from the rest and hear what they essentially sound like.

Lastly, what bugs me about my recordings is not tiny details. We're talking crucial, big-picture stuff here, mostly a lack of mids and lower mids, and a surplus of fizzy high end, probably somewhere in the 5-6k region, which renders the tone sounding thin and fizzy. The midrange that I am missing is what the tracks are missing to sound like a classic rock/metal guitar, or to sound like an electric rock guitar in general, not to sound like a specific target, although that would be nice to be able to achieve, once I am able to get the midrange right.


----------



## Seventh Son

Michael Roe said:


> Your DSL 15 is probably going to be one of the most fizziest Marshall amps that were made. I know, I use to own one! That amp has two things going for it to put it in that category.
> 1) The lead ch is the higher gain version of the DSL = Fizzy!
> 2) That amp uses 6V6 power tubes which are very mid scooped compared to EL34s = Fizzy!
> 
> If I were going for a Maiden tone and owned a DSL15 and a 6100 and had to choose one?
> Well, that is a no-brainer....The 6100 on ch 2 "B" would probably do the trick.
> If I remember correctly the guys from Maiden used the JMP-1 preamp at a latter date. That is a very, not fizzy sounding preamp!
> I have owned both the 6100 and JMP-1 and would say that they are similar in tone with the 6100 having a little more warmth to it.
> I think you are beating a dead horse here. You are just not going to achieve that tone with a DSL15.


Interesting. I have heard the same complaints about the DSL15C before, but let me tell you, when I raise the volume anywhere above 2, the mids on that amp fill out very nicely, and at still higher volume settings, it's got enough mids to tear your head off. With gain at 3 (a very conservative setting, given the amp's vast gain reserves), the amp sounds friggin amazing. Unfortunately, it does not translate to a recording well. As I mentioned before, along with the included sample recordings, the DSL15C sounds a lot better when volume is at 8 or above, but then some of you are skeptical about the tone at those volume settings.

By the way, when you had the DSL15C, did you find it fizzy in the room? I'm curious, because I simply don't. As I've said, I think it sounds great with a Vintage 30 and an MX112, also with a Vintage 30. I hear no trace of fizz as soon as the amp's volume goes past 2.

Next, I also have the EL34-based, "improved" version DSL20CR, which I actually like less than the DSL15C. Not that the DSL20CR is bad, but if I have to pick one, I always gravitate towards the DSL15C (it's a real pity it doesn't have a loop). Anyway, as far as recording goes, the improved, EL34-based DSL20CR is the same story. Fizzy, thin. In the room, it sounds great.

Now, the 6100LM, just the head alone, was a $2,000+ amp when it came out. I have heard comparisons of it with the JCM800 and can attest that they sound almost identical. And even with the 6100LM, I was not happy with the recordings _in the past _(like, 20 years ago, when I was in an actual band). Granted, I don't think I ever pushed the amp very hard during recording, so take that for what it's worth. I will have to set it up for recording and do some more testing during the holidays with a fresh pair of ears to see what I think. Maybe you _are_ onto something here, after all.

I mainly use my DSL15C because conventional wisdom tells us that it is better to record with a smaller amp that is pushed harder, than with a half-stack that has master volume barely on 1–1.5. Most sources that I have consulted recommend using smaller amps for home recording based on the same argument.


----------



## AAHIHaveNoIdeaWhatImDoing

I think I know exactly what you mean from my own recording experiences. 

Something to maybe fart around with is using the amp sims in Logic or whatever and play with the settings on them. Yes its not a real amp but its a reasonable facsimile and I would think if you find a virtual mic position (if your sims let you move the mic around precisely, some dont), knob settings, pedals etc, and if you have the actual mic that your sim mic is simulating, etc. that gets you a good tone, that should translate closely to recording in the real world (IF you can replicate the amp, postioning, etc.). 

Basically I’m suggesting a less annoying way to experiment and hear your “recorded” tone more quickly.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

I'm not saying that the different sounds are no good, in isolation & that they magically become the brilliant sound when you add the bass/drums...

What I'm saying is that, the mix is part of the recipe. There's sometimes, just as much to what you do w/ it after recording, than, the captured sound it's self. Obviously, you need a good sound to start w/...

Knowing what your final mix will be & how to get it are all part of the plot. Some people like to record guitar one way & mix it another, while some like to record it another & mix it accordingly. Sometimes the end result can be the same, but, it's knowing how to get that final print.

All the guys mentioned were recorded on tape. They used older Marshalls & speakers. When you think of Maiden & Priest, they would typically run G12-75 speakers, which have the internets  at how much they suck. They were the standard sound of early metal. Randy used the Altec, which are more generic sounding, like using 12" JBL PA speakers...

The amp's inherently had more of that upper mid, you are looking for.

I keep telling people on here, that, I once saw a show, where there were a dozen guitarist playing one, right after another & a couple slots had 2 guitars.

Most guitars were some sort of JCM800, there were a couple JMP era & a couple DSLs. The DSLs got buried all night. They sounded tiny next to their predecessors. I'm talking 100 watt amp's...


----------



## Seventh Son

Dogs of Doom said:


> I keep telling people on here, that, I once saw a show, where there were a dozen guitarist playing one, right after another & a couple slots had 2 guitars.
> 
> Most guitars were some sort of JCM800, there were a couple JMP era & a couple DSLs. The DSLs got buried all night. They sounded tiny next to their predecessors. I'm talking 100 watt amp's...


That is a very interesting observation. I have also harbored a theory for a while that there would have to be some concession in tone in exchange for the much lower price on the DSL. The fact that the DSLs come from Vietnam should be a first clue. It is further possible that Marshall is purely in the business of selling tone, and that the price tag reflects the "quantity of purchased tone" above all else, just like when we purchase music, we are not really paying for the medium (CD, mp3, etc.), but rather for the intellectual property. I am now intrigued to put the theory to the test. I have a local store that carries the new SC20 combo and head. If your experience is based on a consistent rule, then the SC20, being Made in England and costing three times as the DSL counterpart, should have none of the hereto perceived compromises of the DSL line. I am going to record the SC20 with the exact same equipment I used to record my DSL15C, and post the tracks for you to judge soon, probably before the Christmas holidays. I am curious about the results.

Until then, here's some food for thought for you to digest over the coming days.




To my ears, the SC20 sounds a bit thicker, but both the DSL20CR and the SC20 sound super weird, kind of like a kazoo. I don't think it's a huge difference.

And finally, Johan Segeborn coaxes some pretty good distorted tones from the DSL20CR, but note also his aggressive EQ settings and cranked channel volume.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Johan is using 2 mic's. 1 into the speaker cone & one by the camera.

It's night & day between the 1960 cab & the internal...


----------



## Seventh Son

Dogs of Doom said:


> Johan is using 2 mic's. 1 into the speaker cone & one by the camera.
> 
> It's night & day between the 1960 cab & the internal...


Hmmm...I'm not so sure. I think the internal speaker sounds beefier, but that is due to the EQ settings, since on the 1960 his Presence and Treble are maxed out, providing a silkier tone, whereas with the internal speaker, he's got Presence and Treble turned down appreciably.

Also, Johan himself did a shootout between different cab sizes as per the video below.

Many commenters, including myself, thought the difference wasn't that huge. Bigger wasn't much better. Yes, there was some difference, but not something that the average person would notice. And, in fact, many people found the 1x12 best sounding. This is not to say that bigger isn't better, at the margin, but that the difference isn't big, and that small cabinet size alone probably doesn't account for poor recorded tone.


----------



## Seventh Son

I love the tone this guy is getting with his humble JVM-1 1-Watt head at the beginning of the video. Great midrange. That's what I consider great close-miked rock tone.


----------



## Seventh Son

I've finally figured it out! I used the following settings on my DSL15C Ultra Gain channel.
Bass 4
Middle 6
Treble 8
Presence 8
Gain 2
Volume 8

Recording loud and pushing the power tubes was the most important piece. Mic placement was standard: on-axis, on the grille, right over the dust cap edge. With these settings and mic placement, I get a pretty aggressive, cutting tone that sounds pretty close to Maiden's more modern close-miked tones on _A Matter of Life and Death_ and _Book of Souls_. If I wanted to cop their _Piece of Mind_ tone 100% faithfully, I'd have to use a close and distant mic, but I'm pretty happy with the tone I get just by placing the close mic correctly and giving it some volume.


----------



## BftGibson

after diving into recording big time & not going to studio anymore...i now play to the MIX....the song is a sum total of all parts..cradle the singer in that mix...but in isolation some tracks sound horrible..you take em in & out of mix cause of isolation & double think something is wrong..it just works..i have heard iso of some supposed hero's..they sound like crap but in the mix awesome..its about the song end result in recording..you do a lot of stuff way dif than accustomed to...yes you got to capture right always..that's you the musician doing your best..that's a given when record is hit..

now adays live..is it live ..is there a click track...

i would rather hear a great tune..lil loose but emotional vs 0010101010 perfection...we can all tear everything apart...and lose the ability to even enjoy music.


----------



## Michael Roe

BftGibson said:


> after diving into recording big time & not going to studio anymore...i now play to the MIX....the song is a sum total of all parts..cradle the singer in that mix...but in isolation some tracks sound horrible..you take em in & out of mix cause of isolation & double think something is wrong..it just works..i have heard iso of some supposed hero's..they sound like crap but in the mix awesome..its about the song end result in recording..you do a lot of stuff way dif than accustomed to...yes you got to capture right always..that's you the musician doing your best..that's a given when record is hit..
> 
> now adays live..is it live ..is there a click track...
> 
> i would rather hear a great tune..lil loose but emotional vs 0010101010 perfection...we can all tear everything apart...and lose the ability to even enjoy music.


I 100000% agree with all of that comment!
Yes, when mixing, there are some things you can not change, like a vocalist. You have to work around that. Make everything sound good with the parts you can not change first.
I heard a tribute band this past summer that was using a click track. It was horrible!


----------



## Seventh Son

Hey guys! I just wanted to let you know that I've arrived at the end of this first phase of my recording journey—learning how to capture a good guitar tone by close-miking my amp with an SM57. After more than three years of learning and practice, I have finally mastered capturing my amp's tone as it sounds in the room, including the all-important midrange. Although I will continue to maintain a presence on this forum, I want to take this opportunity and thank you all for your help and patience during this process, as you were witness to my many setbacks as well as many small successes that, over time, added up to what I now know.

Having conquered this challenge, I now look forward to spending more time playing and practicing guitar and maybe finally writing some new material. Having figured out a few days ago how to dial in my amp right, not only for recording purposes but also for general playing and practice, my amp now sounds better than it ever has, and playing guitar has been more fun than ever these past few days, now that my tone finally sounds professional.


----------



## BanditPanda

What Do I Need ?
Hope I'm posting in the right thread.
These days I am recording into a Tascam 8 track recorder.
I go direct from my pedal board into the Tascam straight using the pedals from my board as needed. Recently used for the first time a pre amp in a box pedal.
I do not want to get into micing my DSL40H and cab(s).
What I do want to do is use my board and my DSL40 direct into the Tascam.
I guess I'd have to have a Cab sim somewhere along the line.
What do I need and how do I do that? ( in the easiest and cost friendly way)
BP


----------



## Michael Roe

BanditPanda said:


> What Do I Need ?
> Hope I'm posting in the right thread.
> These days I am recording into a Tascam 8 track recorder.
> I go direct from my pedal board into the Tascam straight using the pedals from my board as needed. Recently used for the first time a pre amp in a box pedal.
> I do not want to get into micing my DSL40H and cab(s).
> What I do want to do is use my board and my DSL40 direct into the Tascam.
> I guess I'd have to have a Cab sim somewhere along the line.
> What do I need and how do I do that? ( in the easiest and cost friendly way)
> BP


You would be much better off recording into a computer. The options are much wider and cheaper as well.
The best way without micing is to use a load box instead of your speaker/mic and then send that line level signal into your computer via an audio interface. From there load up an IR player/Loader and some IRs( Impulse responses).
The cab sim pedals are ok but to achieve a much better sound the Interface/DAW route is far superior.
With an interface/DAW setup you can use multiple IRs instead of just one. Most of your favorite songs have been recorded with multiple mics and using IRs is a very cheap way to mimic it.
Get an interface and a DAW and then contact me and I can get you an IR player/loader for free as well as some IRs. www.zombiecabs.com , my website for IRs


----------



## Dogs of Doom

8 track recorder?


----------



## BanditPanda

Dod..lol in the old days had one of those called a Dokoder .
No I;m using this :


----------



## BanditPanda

Michael Roe said:


> You would be much better off recording into a computer. The options are much wider and cheaper as well.
> The best way without micing is to use a load box instead of your speaker/mic and then send that line level signal into your computer via an audio interface. From there load up an IR player/Loader and some IRs( Impulse responses).
> The cab sim pedals are ok but to achieve a much better sound the Interface/DAW route is far superior.
> With an interface/DAW setup you can use multiple IRs instead of just one. Most of your favorite songs have been recorded with multiple mics and using IRs is a very cheap way to mimic it.
> Get an interface and a DAW and then contact me and I can get you an IR player/loader for free as well as some IRs. www.zombiecabs.com , my website for IRs




Wow..that is a great offer Michael. Thank you.
Presently I am locked into this Tascam direct process. Using a PC means there is a huge learning curve for whatever DAW software program.
And then there's the drum machines et al.
Really don't know if I have the time/patience/intelligence to crack those codes man.
Is there a way to get my DSL hooked up to my Tascam.
Only way that I can think of is by using the FX Loop in some way? 
BP


----------



## Dogs of Doom

I was just looking at this earlier...

https://offerup.com/item/detail/811223941/






$200...

I'm not really in the market for something like this myself, but, it did catch my eye...

There are quite a few devices. Torpedo, Palmer, H&K Redbox, Radial etc...

I typically have never had issues using Marshall's simulated outs. I have a Redbox 5. I hear very little difference between the JVM1 out & the H&K. When using my ISO box, w/ my Sennheiser MK4 mic's, I didn't hear a lot of difference either.

I was running a stereo sound w/ the mic's in the ISO box, recording 2 cab's (1912), 1 w/ V30 & 1 w/ H30. Then running the sim out on the amp, then using stereo effects on that.

Seriously, the best bet is to run the sim out dry, then add effects after the recording. Adding reverb to the sim out will help make it sound more natural. Using reverb (or any effects) before the emulation, filters the brilliance tone off of the reverb. You want those frequencies in the reverb, etc...


----------



## BanditPanda

Dogs of Doom said:


> I was just looking at this earlier...
> 
> https://offerup.com/item/detail/811223941/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $200...
> 
> I'm not really in the market for something like this myself, but, it did catch my eye...
> 
> There are quite a few devices. Torpedo, Palmer, H&K Redbox, Radial etc...
> 
> I typically have never had issues using Marshall's simulated outs. I have a Redbox 5. I hear very little difference between the JVM1 out & the H&K. When using my ISO box, w/ my Sennheiser MK4 mic's, I didn't hear a lot of difference either.
> 
> I was running a stereo sound w/ the mic's in the ISO box, recording 2 cab's (1912), 1 w/ V30 & 1 w/ H30. Then running the sim out on the amp, then using stereo effects on that.
> 
> Seriously, the best bet is to run the sim out dry, then add effects after the recording. Adding reverb to the sim out will help make it sound more natural. Using reverb (or any effects) before the emulation, filters the brilliance tone off of the reverb. You want those frequencies in the reverb, etc...




Thanks for that DOD. So in fact instead of the amp going to speaker cab it gets connected to a load box ( or whatever) and then from that device it can hook up to the Tascam.
Good stuff !
BP


----------



## Dogs of Doom

yes. If you want to go silent (no speaker) you need to have a load on the amp. Some simulator devices do not add a load, so you have to run them w/ a load or speaker (which won't be silent).

I think you an use the (DSL) emulated out & use the amp in standby, to do silent recording. Worth a try...


----------



## BanditPanda

Dogs of Doom said:


> yes. If you want to go silent (no speaker) you need to have a load on the amp. Some simulator devices do not add a load, so you have to run them w/ a load or speaker (which won't be silent).
> 
> I think you an use the (DSL) emulated out & use the amp in standby, to do silent recording. Worth a try...




Thanks again DOD. Unfortunately the DSL40 does not have an emulated out.
BP


----------



## Seventh Son

BanditPanda said:


> Thanks again DOD. Unfortunately the DSL40 does not have an emulated out.
> BP


The H&K Redbox, which @Dogs of Doom mentioned above, is a good starter tool that's cheap, simple to use, and sounds semi-decent. Being that it is, presumably, an emulation of an H&K cab, it has a slightly different sound than the typical Marshall emulated out (the H&K has a more scooped midrange).


----------



## BanditPanda

Seventh Son said:


> The H&K Redbox, which @Dogs of Doom mentioned above, is a good starter tool that's cheap, simple to use, and sounds semi-decent. Being that it is, presumably, an emulation of an H&K cab, it has a slightly different sound than the typical Marshall emulated out (the H&K has a more scooped midrange).



Thank you #7. Will research that Red Box.
BP


----------



## SonVolt

The last time I asked what happened to an old forum member I was informed that they were dead. I'm scared to ask what happened to Blues...


----------



## BanditPanda

Checked out the Red Box and you were right--semi decent.
I've got to sound better than that.!!
I am inquiring after the Torpedo Captor. I am trying to find out if it has built in cab sims or must use their Wall of Sound IR's which of course is no good to me 'cause I'm not using a software DAW.!! Anybody know?
BP


----------



## BanditPanda

I guess what I'm looking for is a reasonably priced load box with cab sims.
Does that creature exist?
Recommendations or ideas ?
BP


----------



## Frodebro

Radial makes an inline speaker-level DI box with a cab sim in it that is meant to emulate a 4x12 cab. It's not nearly as flexible as current load boxes/IRs are, but I used to get really good results with it.

https://www.radialeng.com/product/jdx-48


----------



## BanditPanda

Thank you Frodebro. I will look into it.
BP


----------



## BanditPanda

Frodebro, if I am not mistaken that device is not a load box. Am I right.?
What I am looking for is a load box i.e. the amp plugs directly into the load box eliminating the need for a speaker hook up allowing me to hook the amp > load box > DAW hardware.
BP


----------



## Frodebro

BanditPanda said:


> Frodebro, if I am not mistaken that device is not a load box. Am I right.?
> What I am looking for is a load box i.e. the amp plugs directly into the load box eliminating the need for a speaker hook up allowing me to hook the amp > load box > DAW hardware.
> BP



Correct, it is not a load box. It just runs in between the amp and speaker. I used a THD Hot Plate behind mine as a load box. I suggested it because they're relatively affordable, and wasn't sure if you needed to run totally silent or not. I eventually moved up to a Rivera Rockcrusher Recording, and from there went to a Kemper, which is what I'm using now.


----------



## BanditPanda

Using the Kemper places you in the upper echelon of recording facility. I am merely a beginner not willing to spend big bucks.lol
Thanks for your suggestion just the same.
BP


----------



## BanditPanda

Dogs of Doom said:


> I was just looking at this earlier...
> 
> https://offerup.com/item/detail/811223941/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $200...
> 
> I'm not really in the market for something like this myself, but, it did catch my eye...
> 
> There are quite a few devices. Torpedo, Palmer, H&K Redbox, Radial etc...
> 
> I typically have never had issues using Marshall's simulated outs. I have a Redbox 5. I hear very little difference between the JVM1 out & the H&K. When using my ISO box, w/ my Sennheiser MK4 mic's, I didn't hear a lot of difference either.
> 
> I was running a stereo sound w/ the mic's in the ISO box, recording 2 cab's (1912), 1 w/ V30 & 1 w/ H30. Then running the sim out on the amp, then using stereo effects on that.
> 
> Seriously, the best bet is to run the sim out dry, then add effects after the recording. Adding reverb to the sim out will help make it sound more natural. Using reverb (or any effects) before the emulation, filters the brilliance tone off of the reverb. You want those frequencies in the reverb, etc...




Hey DOD I was just looking at one of these. It is exactly what I'm looking for however the one big draw back is the cab sims which offer only 3 described as " Open Back / Closed Back / Vintage. It sure would be nice if they had offered a better variety of cab/speaker sims.
BP


----------



## Frodebro

BanditPanda said:


> Using the Kemper places you in the upper echelon of recording facility. I am merely a beginner not willing to spend big bucks.lol
> Thanks for your suggestion just the same.
> BP



Just be warned-I started out as a beginner not wanting to spend the big bucks as well... And then I got bit by the bug hard.


----------



## dptone5

I now own UA's Ox Box. Great unit. Lots of flexibility and very solid. Sounds terrific. Expensive though.

We bought the Suhr for our church. Much less flexibility. No power switch. But the 4x12 Greenback cab sounds very realistic and that was $600.

DP


----------



## 4Horseman

BanditPanda said:


> I guess what I'm looking for is a reasonably priced load box with cab sims.
> Does that creature exist?
> Recommendations or ideas ?
> BP


I've seen these used for $425 US. You're More likely to find one closer to 500. I just picked one up last week. No frills, which is what I wanted.
http://www.suhr.com/electronics/tone-tools/reactive-load-ir/


----------



## Michael Roe

BanditPanda said:


> Checked out the Red Box and you were right--semi decent.
> I've got to sound better than that.!!
> I am inquiring after the Torpedo Captor. I am trying to find out if it has built in cab sims or must use their Wall of Sound IR's which of course is no good to me 'cause I'm not using a software DAW.!! Anybody know?
> BP


BP, the Torpedo Captor does have a built in cab sim. I have one but have never tried it out because well, you know, the computer thing etc. I just saw a vid yesterday that Two Notes is releasing a new model called the Torpeda Captor X which will allow you to upload your own IRs to it. That would be better! Not sure what the price would be but I would expect more than the normal versions.
Also, the Mesa Cab Clone has gotten some very poor reviews. I think they came out with a new model as well. So, don't know if that will be better or not.


----------



## BanditPanda

dptone5 said:


> I now own UA's Ox Box. Great unit. Lots of flexibility and very solid. Sounds terrific. Expensive though.
> 
> We bought the Suhr for our church. Much less flexibility. No power switch. But the 4x12 Greenback cab sounds very realistic and that was $600.
> 
> DP



Thanks DP. Oh yeah I know the Ox alright. I think up here it's around 1700 bucks. It's a pro's unit or for a monied hobbyist lol.
BP


----------



## BanditPanda

4Horseman said:


> I've seen these used for $425 US. You're More likely to find one closer to 500. I just picked one up last week. No frills, which is what I wanted.
> http://www.suhr.com/electronics/tone-tools/reactive-load-ir/



Thanks 4Horse. Yes checked out the original Suhr Reactive Load which goes for 500 bucks new up here but has no cab sims. The one you mention the Suhr Reactive Load IR goes for 800 bucks up here. That's kind of an " ouch" for a noodler like me. But yeah that's exactly what I'm looking for.
BP


----------



## BanditPanda

Frodebro said:


> Just be warned-I started out as a beginner not wanting to spend the big bucks as well... And then I got bit by the bug hard.



Lol... thanks for the warning Frodebro.
BP


----------



## BanditPanda

Michael Roe said:


> BP, the Torpedo Captor does have a built in cab sim. I have one but have never tried it out because well, you know, the computer thing etc. I just saw a vid yesterday that Two Notes is releasing a new model called the Torpeda Captor X which will allow you to upload your own IRs to it. That would be better! Not sure what the price would be but I would expect more than the normal versions.
> Also, the Mesa Cab Clone has gotten some very poor reviews. I think they came out with a new model as well. So, don't know if that will be better or not.




Yes Michael the Captor X is at NAMM this year. Going to sell for USD549. Will be available in March. Another unit which will do a great job. That'll sell up here for about 750 bucks.
LOL so a 250 buck Scarlett Interface and a Free PC DAW is the way to go eh.!!
BP


----------



## Exojam

Quick question for the smart ones. I would like to pick up my first mike and "briefly" looking through here do to time constraints, would this be a good first mic? 

Thanks and my apologies upfront for not being able to do a ton of research on them at this point.

Shure SM57-LC


----------



## BanditPanda

For micing an amp yes.A studio standard.
Keep in mind the LC stands for Less Cord
BP


----------



## Exojam

Thank you very much BP!


----------



## ScottyDogg

BanditPanda said:


> Thank you Frodebro. I will look into it.
> BP



Just saw your question now so sorry for the late reply but I can highly recommend the Mooer Radar to accompany a loadbox without IR functionality built in.

It’s an IR loader which has power amp simulation (can be disabled), eq options (optional), different mic options with the stock IRs and you can load IRs (I run Ownhammer IRs with mine).

if you’re interested, Rabea Massaad has a fantastic review/demo of one but if you want a perspective from a normal mortal, I have stuff on YouTube all of which was recorded using my Mooer Radar


----------



## BanditPanda

Thanks very much ScottyDogg. I really appreciate that suggestion and here's the kicker. I took delivery of the Mooer Radar no more than 2 weeks ago.!!!!
At the same time I ordered the Mooer Pre amps Fender 006 and Vox 004.
Yesterday I received the Bruno ( Blueno 020) and the Suhr Badger ( Taxidea Taxus 014).
Just last night I dialed in the 006 with a Strat. Used the AC30 - 2X12 loaded with the Silver Bell speakers close mic'd with the AKG C3000.
My callouses actually hurt this morning!! It was that good with a select few pedals up front.
Mind you doing this with head phones so I am yet to discover how this will translate into my DAW.
Funnily enuff I went this route in order to avoid learning about live micing of a cab and all that entails and of course volume issues. Ends up that I've got a whole lot of parameters to deal with now! lol
Are you on YT under ScottyDogg ?
Is there a site/Forum for users of this gear where setting choices et al are shared?
BP
p.s. Rabea is a gain monster which I am not so his demo, which I did watch on more than one occasion, didn't do it for me.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

this is something I stumbled upon right now. Never heard of such a thing. Looks like it could be a game changer...

https://xtempozone.com/products/pok-ble

It's a foot controller aimed at being able to use your DAW even live during performance...


----------



## ScottyDogg

BanditPanda said:


> Thanks very much ScottyDogg. I really appreciate that suggestion and here's the kicker. I took delivery of the Mooer Radar no more than 2 weeks ago.!!!!
> At the same time I ordered the Mooer Pre amps Fender 006 and Vox 004.
> Yesterday I received the Bruno ( Blueno 020) and the Suhr Badger ( Taxidea Taxus 014).
> Just last night I dialed in the 006 with a Strat. Used the AC30 - 2X12 loaded with the Silver Bell speakers close mic'd with the AKG C3000.
> My callouses actually hurt this morning!! It was that good with a select few pedals up front.
> Mind you doing this with head phones so I am yet to discover how this will translate into my DAW.
> Funnily enuff I went this route in order to avoid learning about live micing of a cab and all that entails and of course volume issues. Ends up that I've got a whole lot of parameters to deal with now! lol
> Are you on YT under ScottyDogg ?
> Is there a site/Forum for users of this gear where setting choices et al are shared?
> BP
> p.s. Rabea is a gain monster which I am not so his demo, which I did watch on more than one occasion, didn't do it for me.



I don’t think there is a forum to share settings but I’m such a simple man that I don’t really fiddle much (though I should really to shape some great tones on the Radar with the eq).

amp - loadbox - Radar (Marshall cab with v30 speakers on the Ownhammer Heavy Hitters collection) and that’s me (no eq, no power amp simulation etc)

If I was going guitar - Mooer preamp pedal - Radar, I’d probably use a similar impulse response on the Radar (Ownhammer) and a power amp sim on the Radar (probably 6L6 cause that tends to be my preference but EL34 is always a solid option).


----------



## BftGibson

slapped this together this weekend in true bedroomcore fashion.. ..gear used is in pic & fender Player P into Ampeg pf50t as usual.


----------



## Neil Skene

I don't know how good it is because I have never recorded with it, but a super cheap option might be to use one of these, cab sim is in OUT 2 (MIXER)


----------



## Neil Skene

Exojam said:


> Quick question for the smart ones. I would like to pick up my first mike and "briefly" looking through here do to time constraints, would this be a good first mic?
> 
> Thanks and my apologies upfront for not being able to do a ton of research on them at this point.
> 
> Shure SM57-LC


The guitars here are recorded with an SM57, I want to try a ribbon mic but don't really play/record enough to justify the cost.


----------



## BanditPanda

*The Best Cheap Ribbon Mic – Top 5 Picks under $300 [street price]*
https://musicproductionnerds.com/best-cheap-ribbon-mic


----------



## Dogs of Doom

ribbon mic's are neat, because they all have a characteristic of their own. There's a learning curve to each one. It's not like you just use it like any other mic.

Some people like to use an in-line booster, like the Cloudlifter (there's tons of them), to boost the signal. They also use them w/ the Shure SM7b, which is another mic that should be considered for serious studio/recording...

I have a pair of Beyer Dynamic ribbon mic's, that have a certain upper mid (10khz) distortion, almost like a tube mic. Which means that you do not want to drive it too hard upfront, & it might mean you run an amp w/ a bit less gain distortion.

Sometimes pushing it adds a little something special that works, other x's, it can work against you. Like everything, it's learning what tool to use & when, or when not.


----------



## Michael Roe

Neil Skene said:


> The guitars here are recorded with an SM57, I want to try a ribbon mic but don't really play/record enough to justify the cost.



That's bad A$$ Neil!


----------



## BftGibson

I love the MXL r144..its now my bass mic & angled mic for guitar..got it for $50..GAP 73 pre handles it fine


----------



## Dogs of Doom

BftGibson said:


> I love the MXL r144..its now my bass mic & angled mic for guitar..got it for $50..GAP 73 pre handles it fine
> View attachment 67540


you can mod that little bad boy to make it substantially better. 

It's a Marshall, why not mod it? ...

1 example:
http://www.preservationsound.com/20...cheap-ribbon-mic-upgrading-the-69-99-mxl-r40/


----------



## BftGibson

Dogs of Doom said:


> you can mod that little bad boy to make it substantially better.
> 
> It's a Marshall, why not mod it? ...
> 
> 1 example:
> http://www.preservationsound.com/20...cheap-ribbon-mic-upgrading-the-69-99-mxl-r40/


I know man..hilarious..it's a Marshall...fooled the studio the other week told him was bringing a Marshalll & whipped the mic out. Reall does pick up nice..learning to use the figure of 8 better each time..it seems to like backed of the grill lil i bit..picks yp the actual sound possibly better than other type mics...very nuetral..what your ear hears at that certain point replicates it pretty well without much color..runs quiet even having to juice the pre


----------



## Dogs of Doom

BftGibson said:


> I know man..hilarious..it's a Marshall...fooled the studio the other week told him was bringing a Marshalll & whipped the mic out. Reall does pick up nice..learning to use the figure of 8 better each time..it seems to like backed of the grill lil i bit..picks yp the actual sound possibly better than other type mics...very nuetral..what your ear hears at that certain point replicates it pretty well without much color..runs quiet even having to juice the pre


ribbons are generally low signal out, which is why people use line boosters w/ them. That's also why people mod them, especially the cheap ones, by putting a trans that will pump out more power.

That trans is a cheapie, but makes considerable difference. There are plenty more, if you search for mod's for your mic. Some are expensive (as much, or more than the mic it's self), but, when you see them, do a search on the trans, & you'll probably find them for ½ the price of the mod site...

here's another mod site w/ 3 trans listed:

https://www.diyribbonmic.com/parts/


----------



## BftGibson

Dogs of Doom said:


> ribbons are generally low signal out, which is why people use line boosters w/ them. That's also why people mod them, especially the cheap ones, by putting a trans that will pump out more power.
> 
> That trans is a cheapie, but makes considerable difference. There are plenty more, if you search for mod's for your mic. Some are expensive (as much, or more than the mic it's self), but, when you see them, do a search on the trans, & you'll probably find them for ½ the price of the mod site...
> 
> here's another mod site w/ 3 trans listed:
> 
> https://www.diyribbonmic.com/parts/


I wont' touch this mic ..That GAP 73 will power anything wuth pure non hiss ..gain..incredible pre for the money..i prefer it & mxl 144 to some of the "studio" gear the studio i go to. This mic is incredible on its own..been dumping all the guro approved gear lately... mind...fingers & ears ..right? lol


----------



## Del Rei

Hi there... Trying to understand my new Yamaha HS5 monitors (almost zero bass/low end)...
My previous speakers were not monitors, so there was a lot of bass. For mixing it's not good.

Just recorded this audio for a pedal demo.
What do you guys think?
Connected my AC15 through an isobox with Creamback65, Shure SM57 and AKG P170 inside.
Added some reverb from Reaper.

Any tips to get better on my next recording?


----------



## Dogs of Doom

you need a sub...

A few years back, I bought a pair. I got them from a guy who does production for Capitol Records. I went over to his studio & gave them a listen, but he had a sub.

When I got them home, I felt the same way as you. If you get the HS8 sub, you'll get the sound you're looking for...

Make sure that you use the crossover to cut the bass from the HS5, or you run risk of harming the 5" woofer when you crank it...


----------



## Del Rei

Dogs of Doom said:


> you need a sub...
> 
> A few years back, I bought a pair. I got them from a guy who does production for Capitol Records. I went over to his studio & gave them a listen, but he had a sub.
> 
> When I got them home, I felt the same way as you. If you get the HS8 sub, you'll get the sound you're looking for...
> 
> Make sure that you use the crossover to cut the bass from the HS5, or you run risk of harming the 5" woofer when you crank it...



Thanks man.
But as people say, isn't it bad for mixing? I mean, using a sub will make you think there is some bass when it's not.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Del Rei said:


> Thanks man.
> But as people say, isn't it bad for mixing? I mean, using a sub will make you think there is some bass when it's not.


no, you need to dial it in...

Interesting... observation on your mix:

usually when mixing on a system that lacks bass, you add too much to compensate. Your mix lacks bass.

Usually, when you have a system that pumps too much bass, you mix a track that lacks bass.

If you dial in the speakers, so that they are well balanced, then the next thing is getting used to them. Listen to the studio productions that you wish to get sonically close to & then use that as your benchmark.


----------



## Antmax

OOps posted in wrong window lol


----------



## marco_giampa23

blues_n_cues said:


> since we don't have a sub forum for it.
> questions,answers,tips,tricks,techniques,gear?
> post 'em up.


Im looking to get into recording mostly guitars and maybe some band stuff here and there. Ive got SM57s that I managed to get for free as they were "not working", someone just twisted the wires on the inside hwen screwing in the capsule and broke the solder joints. Im looking for an audio interface and not sure exactly what to get. If I am recording by myself at home I would like to get another mic or 2 and run 3 mics on my cabinet. But if im recording "live" with someone else 1 SM57 per cab should be fine.

I have heard people running their mics into a mixer, then going out stereo into the interface, but then you will not be able to isolate the tracks in your DAW


----------



## Dogs of Doom

marco_giampa23 said:


> I have heard people running their mics into a mixer, then going out stereo into the interface, but then you will not be able to isolate the tracks in your DAW


if recording multiple mic's, record them directly into the interface as mono. You can mix them in DAW into stereo later.

That way you can record 2 guitarists too & mix later.

I have, in the past, recorded 2 cab's & assigned them l/r into a stereo channel control, so that they record stereo in the DAW.

But, that was recording a mono signal into a cab w/ 1-V30 & 1-H30 & that was stereo, due to the speaker tone/response, etc. I also then ran a direct sim out feed into the DAW as either dry center, or into my Quadraverb2 & stereo effects blended w/ the 2 stereo dry channels from the cab's.

There's a lot you can do.

I use a Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 (it's a few years old, I think Gen 2 it's red). It works great for what I'm doing. I haven't tried doing a band w/ it. If so, it has 10 mic inputs, 2 of which are line/mic. It also has 8 or so line in or bus channels.

It just depends on how much you want to spend & what you want/need to do. You can daisy chain interfaces, so if you find the 18i20 isn't big enough, you can get another & hook them side-by-side. This is an intermediate line interface, so, the pre-amp inputs will be decent, but, they won't be like the high-end ones people dream of...

I see these models running for about $200/ea used in the local ads...


----------



## Del Rei

Dogs of Doom said:


> then the next thing is getting used to them. Listen to the studio productions that you wish to get sonically close to & then use that as your benchmark.



Yeah, that's what I'm doing these days.


----------



## marco_giampa23

Dogs of Doom said:


> if recording multiple mic's, record them directly into the interface as mono. You can mix them in DAW into stereo later.
> 
> That way you can record 2 guitarists too & mix later.
> 
> I have, in the past, recorded 2 cab's & assigned them l/r into a stereo channel control, so that they record stereo in the DAW.
> 
> But, that was recording a mono signal into a cab w/ 1-V30 & 1-H30 & that was stereo, due to the speaker tone/response, etc. I also then ran a direct sim out feed into the DAW as either dry center, or into my Quadraverb2 & stereo effects blended w/ the 2 stereo dry channels from the cab's.
> 
> There's a lot you can do.
> 
> I use a Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 (it's a few years old, I think Gen 2 it's red). It works great for what I'm doing. I haven't tried doing a band w/ it. If so, it has 10 mic inputs, 2 of which are line/mic. It also has 8 or so line in or bus channels.
> 
> It just depends on how much you want to spend & what you want/need to do. You can daisy chain interfaces, so if you find the 18i20 isn't big enough, you can get another & hook them side-by-side. This is an intermediate line interface, so, the pre-amp inputs will be decent, but, they won't be like the high-end ones people dream of...
> 
> I see these models running for about $200/ea used in the local ads...


I wouldnt really want to spend more than 200 on an interface, depends on the specs of course. I like the look of the gen 2 focusrite 2i2 but I think i will need more inputs. The behringer stuff is a little cheaper but not sure how it stacks up.


----------



## Seventh Son

Dogs of Doom said:


> no, you need to dial it in...
> 
> Interesting... observation on your mix:
> 
> usually when mixing on a system that lacks bass, you add too much to compensate. Your mix lacks bass.
> 
> Usually, when you have a system that pumps too much bass, you mix a track that lacks bass.
> 
> If you dial in the speakers, so that they are well balanced, then the next thing is getting used to them. Listen to the studio productions that you wish to get sonically close to & then use that as your benchmark.


I just saw your post and thought I'd provide a different take on the topic by posting the video below (skip to 5:23).


----------



## Gaz Baker

Hey there folks.

I'm after a decent 31/32 band EQ plugin, preferably free. I like the bigger band ones, as I'm able to make finer adjustments, which I find useful for achieving my guitar sound.

I was using an excellent one by "Acoustica" to post EQ my guitar tracks, but the save function stopped working.

I spent some money on 3 different ones, but they're shit. (This is why I'd prefer free)

Probably fine for minor adjustments when mastering, but not really suitable for my guitar tracks. 
(Not that I'm making large adjustments to my guitar tracks, but more to do with specific frequencies)

I have a few other lesser band ones, but they either feel weak in effect, or make my desired result hard to achieve. Or won't save.

Can anyone point me in the right direction?

Cheers


----------



## Dogs of Doom

what are you using as a DAW?


----------



## Gaz Baker

Dogs of Doom said:


> what are you using as a DAW?



Ableton


----------



## ibmorjamn

Unrelated but I just ordered Mixcraft 8


----------



## ibmorjamn

Gaz Baker said:


> Hey there folks.
> 
> I'm after a decent 31/32 band EQ plugin, preferably free. I like the bigger band ones, as I'm able to make finer adjustments, which I find useful for achieving my guitar sound.
> 
> I was using an excellent one by "Acoustica" to post EQ my guitar tracks, but the save function stopped working.
> 
> I spent some money on 3 different ones, but they're shit. (This is why I'd prefer free)
> 
> Probably fine for minor adjustments when mastering, but not really suitable for my guitar tracks.
> (Not that I'm making large adjustments to my guitar tracks, but more to do with specific frequencies)
> 
> I have a few other lesser band ones, but they either feel weak in effect, or make my desired result hard to achieve. Or won't save.
> 
> Can anyone point me in the right direction?
> 
> Cheers


I have no knowledge of this software but found this:
https://ultra-curve-design-for-dsp8024.software.informer.com/
Just doing a search I also found this. 


https://bedroomproducersblog.com/2018/10/23/discodsp-eq30-free/


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Gaz Baker said:


> Ableton


there are many VST's available. I personally don't think you need to concentrate on an xx band EQ. There are many parametric EQ's, that you have total control over the frequency & the band-width.

For instance, you can choose 250hz & then drop it, in as narrow, or as wide a band as necessary. The problem w/ say a 31 band EQ, is that the bands will be set. The more bands, the more narrow the band.

Generally, you should not need so many bands, but have a single, or a few problem bands. If you try to boost/cut too sharply, a narrow band, too many db, you will end up nasally or hollow, w/ unnatural/unpleasant results.


----------



## Gaz Baker

Dogs of Doom said:


> there are many VST's available. I personally don't think you need to concentrate on an xx band EQ. There are many parametric EQ's, that you have total control over the frequency & the band-width.
> 
> For instance, you can choose 250hz & then drop it, in as narrow, or as wide a band as necessary. The problem w/ say a 31 band EQ, is that the bands will be set. The more bands, the more narrow the band.
> 
> Generally, you should not need so many bands, but have a single, or a few problem bands. If you try to boost/cut too sharply, a narrow band, too many db, you will end up nasally or hollow, w/ unnatural/unpleasant results.





I'm not one for boosting, or making big changes. If I needed to make big changes, then I'd be looking at the recorded source first. IE: mic placement, guitar EQ, etc...
I generally make small cuts where needed.

Yes, there ARE many vst's available, but for whatever reason, I can't seem to get the same results with any other EQ's I've tried so far (Especially parametric EQ's) that I did, 

making MINOR adjustments on the failing 31 band graphic EQ I had. 

I can get close, but it takes a lot more fucking around to get close, and close ain't good enough.


----------



## Seventh Son

Gaz Baker said:


> I'm not one for boosting, or making big changes. If I needed to make big changes, then I'd be looking at the recorded source first. IE: mic placement, guitar EQ, etc...
> I generally make small cuts where needed.
> 
> Yes, there ARE many vst's available, but for whatever reason, I can't seem to get the same results with any other EQ's I've tried so far (Especially parametric EQ's) that I did,
> 
> making MINOR adjustments on the failing 31 band graphic EQ I had.
> 
> I can get close, but it takes a lot more fucking around to get close, and close ain't good enough.


A four- or six-band EQ is really all you need. Ermin Hamidovic, author of _The Systematic Mixing Guide_, recommends doing EQ in as few moves as possible. He also adds that any EQ done to a track will degrade the quality of the track to an extent, so the fewer moves, the better. He also recommends using subtractive EQ only. Other instructors are a little more lenient with that rule and recommend to use a wide curve if you need to boost, and a narrow curve if you need to cut.


----------



## Seventh Son

Dogs of Doom said:


> there are many VST's available. I personally don't think you need to concentrate on an xx band EQ. There are many parametric EQ's, that you have total control over the frequency & the band-width.
> 
> For instance, you can choose 250hz & then drop it, in as narrow, or as wide a band as necessary. The problem w/ say a 31 band EQ, is that the bands will be set. The more bands, the more narrow the band.
> 
> Generally, you should not need so many bands, but have a single, or a few problem bands. If you try to boost/cut too sharply, a narrow band, too many db, you will end up nasally or hollow, w/ unnatural/unpleasant results.


This is very interesting and new to me. I often see pros doing a few very narrow and often deep cuts (dubbed surgical EQ) to address problem frequencies. Are you saying it is better to avoid doing that?


----------



## Seventh Son

Neil Skene said:


> The guitars here are recorded with an SM57, I want to try a ribbon mic but don't really play/record enough to justify the cost.



The guitars on that one sound very interesting. I hear a bit of room in the guitars; an SM57 typically has much more proximity effect when it's within an inch off the grille. Did you back the mic off a few inches while recording or maybe angle it to get more room in it?


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Seventh Son said:


> This is very interesting and new to me. I often see pros doing a few very narrow and often deep cuts (dubbed surgical EQ) to address problem frequencies. Are you saying it is better to avoid doing that?


yes, that's what I'd say as standard practice.

You always have exceptions to any rule. Use your ear, but, listen after you do whatever invasive action you do. If it sounds good, later on, you've probably done right. If it sounds unnatural, then you know you went to sharp, too drastic...


----------



## Gaz Baker

Seventh Son said:


> ....He also recommends using subtractive EQ only. Other instructors are a little more lenient with that rule and recommend to use a wide curve if you need to boost, and a narrow curve if you need to cut.



Pretty much what I do.

No offense to anyone else here, as I do appreciate advice, but I'm generally reluctant to ask questions around these sorts of subjects, as I find that people tend to try to solve issues I don't have.

IE: Telling me how to make my adjustments, or assume I'm making wrong adjustments, when they haven't even heard my work, and all I want is a plugin.
(This happened on a Facebook group)

I was VERY satisfied with the results of the out going EQ I had, and the miniscule adjustments made to get there, but have since found a replacement parametric EQ that
WORKS REALLY well, which is what the problem WAS for me. Finding one that works.

Personally, I find some MINOR cuts in a couple of places lessens the harsh/fizzy sounds associated with high gain metal guitar tracks.


Here's an interesting clip that I tend to follow, and whether you like Glenn or not, his work speaks for itself.
The guitars sound great. 

Skip to 4:30 for the applicable info.

Cheers


----------



## SmokeyDopey

I was expecting a 31 band EQ in that video! 

It's just odd to use an EQ like that for a guitar. They're usually used to tune monitors/PA system to a room. Of course you can use it for guitar, it _does _equalize after all, it's just a bit odd. 

I do not know of any 31/32 band EQs since I don't really use them. If that is all you are looking for, I can't help you. Good luck!


----------



## Gaz Baker

SmokeyDopey said:


> ...It's just odd to use an EQ like that for a guitar. They're usually used to tune monitors/PA system to a room. Of course you can use it for guitar, it _does _equalize after all, it's just a bit odd....



Well, rather than write a novel, I was trying to keep things shorter. (Against my better judgement, obviously).

However, it was more a case of using what I had, and that just seemed to be easy to use to get results. What's more, the other EQ's I tried were rubbish. 

So it made sense to me to look for something similar. Not rocket science really.

And as I said in my post you quoted, I've since found a parametric EQ that fits the bill. So help isn't any longer required, but thanks for your opinion.


----------



## SmokeyDopey

- response edit- (I've been a bit irritable lately)

Glad you sorted that out.


----------



## ibmorjamn

Anyone here using mixcraft to record , mainly needing tips on loading 3rd party VST’s


----------



## ibmorjamn

I got it , simple . Download drag and drop the DLL file. Done


----------



## Australian

Has anyone here started using UAD Luna yet?
I'm downloading it now and wondering how you guys found it to be?


----------



## Madfinger

Anyone have thoughts on Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 bundle with Pro Tools First & Ableton Live for intro to home recording. I'm no pro so looking for something relatively simple to use but reasonable quaulity & features at a reasonable price.
TIA.


----------



## Australian

Australian said:


> Has anyone here started using UAD Luna yet?
> I'm downloading it now and wondering how you guys found it to be?



wow...Game Changer!


----------



## 4Horseman

Australian said:


> Has anyone here started using UAD Luna yet?
> I'm downloading it now and wondering how you guys found it to be?


I downloaded it when it first came out, opened the app and lost sound through my computer. Honestly, I haven't tried again, a little to busy for getitng into it right now. I'll need to watch some demos when I get the chance.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Madfinger said:


> Anyone have thoughts on Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 bundle with Pro Tools First & Ableton Live for intro to home recording. I'm no pro so looking for something relatively simple to use but reasonable quaulity & features at a reasonable price.
> TIA.


I don't have any real world experience w/ either software, but, they are similar. I've been using Adobe Audition, since the days of Cool Edit Pro, which used to have the name numbered by year in the '90s. Seems like it was Cool Edit 95 or something when I 1st got it...

Focusrite makes decent interfaces. I have the Scarlett 18i20. For home recording it seems ample enough. The 2i2 should be similar, but only 2 channel, w/ less busing, etc.


----------



## Australian

4Horseman said:


> I downloaded it when it first came out, opened the app and lost sound through my computer. Honestly, I haven't tried again, a little to busy for getitng into it right now. I'll need to watch some demos when I get the chance.



The zero latency is really good. You notice the difference when playing keyboards, and recording guitar. It feels like a real studio.
Are you using Apollo as a Audio Interface?


----------



## 4Horseman

Australian said:


> The zero latency is really good. You notice the difference when playing keyboards, and recording guitar. It feels like a real studio.
> Are you using Apollo as a Audio Interface?


No, I purchased the Arrow. I finally watched the training videos last night and updated Luna. It does look quite good, I'll dive into it this weekend. Glad you mentioned the low keyboard latency, I've been meaning to dust my old midi keyboard off for a while.


----------



## Australian

4Horseman said:


> No, I purchased the Arrow. I finally watched the training videos last night and updated Luna. It does look quite good, I'll dive into it this weekend. Glad you mentioned the low keyboard latency, I've been meaning to dust my old midi keyboard off for a while.



Its something that I can see that I might change to as it progresses through the updates. At the moment I’m not keen on the auto save as I’m used to saving only when I am happy with the changes done in the project.


----------



## Del Rei

Hey, guys.
What you think of this one? Still trying to know better my new Yamaha HS5 monitors...........
Les Paul + MIAB pedal + Vox AC15 + Isobox + SM57 + AKG P170 + Creamback65


----------



## IOSEPHVS

My DAW is down. I laid down a couple of tracks two days ago, including one very difficult section, on guitar. I closed out of SONAR, and thought I had shut everything down. I guess the PC didn't actually shut down all the way after I had left the room. Today, I went in to resume where I had left off, and found the PC stuck in a constant loop: it executes POST, and reboots. Troubleshooting and fixing the problem won't be difficult. It's just time consuming, and I'd rather be playing guitar instead of resolving the issue.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Del Rei said:


> Hey, guys.
> What you think of this one? Still trying to know better my new Yamaha HS5 monitors...........
> Les Paul + MIAB pedal + Vox AC15 + Isobox + SM57 + AKG P170 + Creamback65



your privacy setting on your clip doesn't allow it to be embedded here...


----------



## Del Rei

Dogs of Doom said:


> your privacy setting on your clip doesn't allow it to be embedded here...


Wow... really? Weird, I can play the clip here. You mean my privacy setting on SoundCloud..?


----------



## Seventh Son

I was wondering, what is the best way to achieve presence in close-miked guitar recordings? I have found that I can get a good midrange with a smooth top end, but the smooth top end comes at the expense of a duller, less bright recording that sounds a bit wooly.

I have also noticed that, apparently, dialing in more bass on the amp actually gives the tone more girth and definition in the midrange, rather than roominess, while it also seems to enhance clarity. I am not sure what to think of that and whether I am hearing it right. What do you guys think?


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Del Rei said:


> Wow... really? Weird, I can play the clip here. You mean my privacy setting on SoundCloud..?


it works now, but the other link doesn't...


----------



## Seventh Son

I have noticed that my close-miked (on the speaker cloth) recordings with an SM57 are dominated by frequency build-up in the 100–200Hz range. The boominess is noticeable in the room even when the amp's volume is set below conversational volume. It manifests itself as a nasty build-up of low frequency as a power chord (say, E, D, and C, on the 7th, 5th, and 3rd fret, respectively) is struck and let to ring out. On the graphic EQ analyzer, the wave shows those build-ups as burgeoning high-Q spikes, in addition to the wave being heavily tilted in favor of the sub-500Hz region. I am surprised how much of that nasty build-up makes it into the mic, considering the SM57 is considered as very directional. Have you guys ever noticed this in your homes and apartments? And, is there anything that can be done to minimize the problem?


----------



## twangsta

Del Rei said:


> Hey, guys.
> What you think of this one? Still trying to know better my new Yamaha HS5 monitors...........
> Les Paul + MIAB pedal + Vox AC15 + Isobox + SM57 + AKG P170 + Creamback65



That sounds great; how did you get your drums there? Live or sampled?

Here's my first mix/track ever, I"m using an SM75 to a 1960B cab. Not sure where to go from here.


----------



## Del Rei

twangsta said:


> That sounds great; how did you get your drums there? Live or sampled?
> Here's my first mix/track ever, I"m using an SM75 to a 1960B cab. Not sure where to go from here.



Wow!
Great recording, man... You got a nice open sound, so much clarity in this mix, man. How do you make it? I always think my music gets a very closed feel.

About my drums, it's EzDrummer.


----------



## twangsta

Del Rei said:


> Wow!
> Great recording, man... You got a nice open sound, so much clarity in this mix, man. How do you make it? I always think my music gets a very closed feel.
> 
> About my drums, it's EzDrummer.


I liked your recording!


Thanks, beginners luck I guess 

My first track when I tried to create it from scratch. But I've been experimenting for a few months on various non-descript recordings, for example on this track I hadn't quite got the mic in the right place yet.



Also, my cab has steadily been breaking in more. Not as harsh as it was 5 months or a year ago. Most of my older backtrack based recordings are terrible.

Fender YJM sig strat -> Vermuram Budi ( for the second solo )-> DOD YJM 308 ( for the first solo I think ) -> RR100 -> 1960B (T75) -> SM75 ( edge of cap ) -> RME Babyface Pro -> Studio One 4.x ( stock plugins for reverb, compression and eq ) [ EzDrummer on here too  ]

Double-tracked the clean bits and the opening melody and hard-panned them about 75% side to side.
I kept the input gain on the mic pre conservative and boosted in DAW, I find that feels warmer.
Watched a few vids on mixing, kept things to a minimum.


----------



## Del Rei

twangsta said:


> I liked your recording!
> Thanks, beginners luck I guess
> My first track when I tried to create it from scratch. But I've been experimenting for a few months on various non-descript recordings, for example on this track I hadn't quite got the mic in the right place yet.
> 
> 
> Also, my cab has steadily been breaking in more. Not as harsh as it was 5 months or a year ago. Most of my older backtrack based recordings are terrible.
> Fender YJM sig strat -> Vermuram Budi ( for the second solo )-> DOD YJM 308 ( for the first solo I think ) -> RR100 -> 1960B (T75) -> SM75 ( edge of cap ) -> RME Babyface Pro -> Studio One 4.x ( stock plugins for reverb, compression and eq ) [ EzDrummer on here too  ]
> Double-tracked the clean bits and the opening melody and hard-panned them about 75% side to side.
> I kept the input gain on the mic pre conservative and boosted in DAW, I find that feels warmer.
> Watched a few vids on mixing, kept things to a minimum.



Wow!
That sounds very good, man. Excellent playing too! 
Never tried this Vermuram, but from what I hear, it sounds really good.
I always try to increase the input gain in the mic as much as possible, but I'll do some tests like you said! That double hard panning must be interesting too... I'll try it as well.
Thanks. man!! \o/


----------



## twangsta

Del Rei said:


> Wow!
> That sounds very good, man. Excellent playing too!
> Never tried this Vermuram, but from what I hear, it sounds really good.
> I always try to increase the input gain in the mic as much as possible, but I'll do some tests like you said! That double hard panning must be interesting too... I'll try it as well.
> Thanks. man!! \o/


Thanks mate! Good luck, happy rockin


----------



## Seventh Son

I am saddened to have just learned of the sad passing of Martin Birch. He passed away last Sunday, August 9, at the age of 71. The news was announced on Iron Maiden's website. The link is below.
https://www.ironmaiden.com/news/article/rip-martin-birch-1948-2020

Martin Birch's work was my main inspiration in recording, and I have spent years studying his work and researching his techniques. He will be greatly missed. Never again will we have such beautifully produced heavy metal.


----------



## twangsta

Seventh Son said:


> I am saddened to have just learned of the sad passing of Martin Birch. He passed away last Sunday, August 9, at the age of 71. The news was announced on Iron Maiden's website. The link is below.
> https://www.ironmaiden.com/news/article/rip-martin-birch-1948-2020
> 
> Martin Birch's work was my main inspiration in recording, and I have spent years studying his work and researching his techniques. He will be greatly missed. Never again will we have such beautifully produced heavy metal.


That is sad news indeed, Fear of the Dark was my favourite album of theirs. Always liked their sound.

Been trying to get a more classic YJM sound, I used to dime my amp except for vol2 at zero, now I got presence 0, bass 0, middle 10, treble 6, vol1 10, vol2 0, no jumper.
Using a Boiling point on the clean boost mode, vol and tone midway, drive one notch up from midway. I've had the amp about a year, still getting to know it, nothing straight forward about the controls, they really interact in a complex way I think, but it's getting better.


I love this riff, just a first pass fitting the riff into the track. I thought the tone was better than my previous attempts.

edit: fixed the link.


----------



## Seventh Son

twangsta said:


> That is sad news indeed, Fear of the Dark was my favourite album of theirs. Always liked their sound.
> 
> Been trying to get a more classic YJM sound, I used to dime my amp except for vol2 at zero, now I got presence 0, bass 0, middle 10, treble 6, vol1 10, vol2 0, no jumper.
> Using a Boiling point on the clean boost mode, vol and tone midway, drive one notch up from midway. I've had the amp about a year, still getting to know it, nothing straight forward about the controls, they really interact in a complex way I think, but it's getting better.
> 
> 
> I love this riff, just a first pass fitting the riff into the track. I thought the tone was better than my previous attempts.
> 
> edit: fixed the link.



Great recording! How on earth do you do that?


----------



## twangsta

Working on a new track, simple 80s cliches


----------



## Midnight Blues

I've been going through my old Guitar Player magazines, tearing-out lessons/articles that I want to save before trashing the rest of the magazine and being the huge Frampton fan that I have been/am (50 years next year), I came across this article and thought I'd share. I hope that at least some of you will find it useful/enjoyable:


----------



## Seventh Son

Midnight Blues said:


> I've been going through my old Guitar Player magazines, tearing-out lessons/articles that I want to save before trashing the rest of the magazine and being the huge Frampton fan that I have been/am (50 years next year), I came across this article and thought I'd share. I hope that at least some of you will find it useful/enjoyable:


Wow! Five mics to record a guitar amp! Apparently, phase isn't an issue for Peter Frampton. I often wonder how the modern engineers get great tones with just an SM57. Bobby Torres swears by just an SM57 in "the right spot." So does Jordan Valeriote. And Andy Sneap (although Andy sometimes employed a second close mic, but he used to rely on just an SM57). To me, the close mic never sounds anything like the sound in the room. Also, after having completely abandoned the idea of ever again placing an SM57 squarely at the center of the cone, because it sounds too papery and too harsh for me, it is ironic that Peter Frampton thinks the center position sounds "too honky" for him. The last word that comes to my mind when I think of the center placement is "honky."

Very useful article. Thank you.


----------



## twangsta

Seventh Son said:


> Wow! Five mics to record a guitar amp! Apparently, phase isn't an issue for Peter Frampton. I often wonder how the modern engineers get great tones with just an SM57. Bobby Torres swears by just an SM57 in "the right spot." So does Jordan Valeriote. And Andy Sneap (although Andy sometimes employed a second close mic, but he used to rely on just an SM57). To me, the close mic never sounds anything like the sound in the room. Also, after having completely abandoned the idea of ever again placing an SM57 squarely at the center of the cone, because it sounds too papery and too harsh for me, it is ironic that Peter Frampton thinks the center position sounds "too honky" for him. The last word that comes to my mind when I think of the center placement is "honky."
> 
> Very useful article. Thank you.




Talking about 5 mics! Check the bass setup 

SM57 squared center would really depend on the kind to tone and speaker, I totally agree with you, it's too harsh, I prefer it closer to the edge of the cone. I'm using T75s, I don't know most folks look down on them but for my needs there perfect which is mostly high gain.




A small sample of some song ideas I was working on, mic'd closer to the edge of the cone up close, no eq on all but the last. This works great especially if I double track. But I'm just working with what I have, I'd love to have a nice ribbon to get a good room sound someday.


----------



## Seventh Son

twangsta said:


> Talking about 5 mics! Check the bass setup
> 
> SM57 squared center would really depend on the kind to tone and speaker, I totally agree with you, it's too harsh, I prefer it closer to the edge of the cone. I'm using T75s, I don't know most folks look down on them but for my needs there perfect which is mostly high gain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A small sample of some song ideas I was working on, mic'd closer to the edge of the cone up close, no eq on all but the last. This works great especially if I double track. But I'm just working with what I have, I'd love to have a nice ribbon to get a good room sound someday.



Very interesting song ideas. I wish I could start a band with you.

I have the G12T-75's in one of my 112 cabs, but I don't use them as much, just because I know my V30's so well for recording that switching would require relearning the speaker. I don't get the hate the G12T-75's get. They can be a little too energetic in the treble region and call attention to themselves a lot in the mix, but they sound good to me. Having researched them quite a bit and worked with them a bit, however, I was under the impression that they can be recorded on the dust cap edge or even a bit close to the center due to their bigger dust cap.

I can't claim I know everything about everything, but I learn something new every day. Today, I was watching this video by Johann Segeborn, in which he reviewed the DSL20CR, which I also have. I noticed not only that he was apparently mic'ing pretty close to the center with an SM57, but he also had his mids, treble, and presence all on 10. I think the reason he was able to mic close to the center was, because his volume was also on 10, where, on the DSL20CR, at least, the bright cap is removed from the circuit and the amp thickens up considerable, with a noticeable rounding in the top end.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjnQYnnqPgI

So, the lesson for me was that traditional mic placement can work really well, but it is situation dependent. If I am mic'ing at lower volumes, I am always struggling to find a good spot, and nothing sounds good enough to me. If I place the mic at the cap edge, the high end is thin and abrasive, the mids fizzy and hollow, and the bottom end flabby. If I place it more toward the surround, it gains more body, but at the expense of sounding dull and too dark. Moving the mic away from the grille helps some, but introduces more room, more thinness, and more brittleness with an SM57.


----------



## twangsta

Seventh Son said:


> Very interesting song ideas. I wish I could start a band with you.
> 
> I have the G12T-75's in one of my 112 cabs, but I don't use them as much, just because I know my V30's so well for recording that switching would require relearning the speaker. I don't get the hate the G12T-75's get. They can be a little too energetic in the treble region and call attention to themselves a lot in the mix, but they sound good to me. Having researched them quite a bit and worked with them a bit, however, I was under the impression that they can be recorded on the dust cap edge or even a bit close to the center due to their bigger dust cap.
> 
> I can't claim I know everything about everything, but I learn something new every day. Today, I was watching this video by Johann Segeborn, in which he reviewed the DSL20CR, which I also have. I noticed not only that he was apparently mic'ing pretty close to the center with an SM57, but he also had his mids, treble, and presence all on 10. I think the reason he was able to mic close to the center was, because his volume was also on 10, where, on the DSL20CR, at least, the bright cap is removed from the circuit and the amp thickens up considerable, with a noticeable rounding in the top end.
> 
> 
> So, the lesson for me was that traditional mic placement can work really well, but it is situation dependent. If I am mic'ing at lower volumes, I am always struggling to find a good spot, and nothing sounds good enough to me. If I place the mic at the cap edge, the high end is thin and abrasive, the mids fizzy and hollow, and the bottom end flabby. If I place it more toward the surround, it gains more body, but at the expense of sounding dull and too dark. Moving the mic away from the grille helps some, but introduces more room, more thinness, and more brittleness with an SM57.




Wow, that's the huge compliment, thanks. Still always open to some collab work. I'm based in India, so limited options :/
Can't wait to get out next year to Goa and fire a band up. One of the reasons I keep trying to work on songs.

I had a fall out with my keyboard player (based in LA), we were working remotely, he had a lot of issues with the tools, remarkably technically-challenged, just couldn't get the tools, great musician but temperament and workflow was a mess, unfortunately. In the end, I gave up for that and various reasons.

That is correct about the bright cap.

In my case all those recordings have everything set to 10 except Vol2 which is at 0, I tend to keep the amp jumpered with vol2 at 0. The only reasons I can manage this is the RR100 has a great PPIMV, I'm not sure what implementation it is but it sounds very good almost from the get-go, there can be a little fuzz at whisper levels.

I use this one cab all the time, bought it new and have noticed the tone distinctly improve 3 or 4 times, over the year I've had it. Now, these are the stock Chinese made T75s. I love YJM and the tone is spot on for me. I had a buddy bring over a V30 cab, we tried them both back to back, both were good but for different things, my personal preference was the lowly T75s, like you I guess we're just used to what we're used to 

Bang on about the mic placement, if I had to put a scale to it, zero being the cap edge, and 10 the outer cone edge, I'm usually around 7ish at my practice volume, as I raise the PPIMV volume I can get closer to the cap but I haven't gotten too close as I have my folks at the farm due to covid.

It's true about learning as you go; One year in with this rig and I've shed a lot of misinformation, the Vemuram Karen sounded terrible initially with the rig, put it into storage, busted it out after 9 months and damn was I surprised at how 3Dimentional, rich it was, same amp settings but on the pedal drive 0 vol full, tone middle. Learn something new every day!

I need a longer patch cable now for the NS2 loop. I've got about 5 drives including a boost! All flavours I love, though to me it's down to what works with either pickup, neck or bridge, some do both balanced, some start to lose definition on low notes with the neck pup, though in those cases I bet a V30 or something brighter may fix that, btw I did find the V30 a brighter, is that a common assessment compared to a T75, granted my T75 have been well used the V30 to so much at that point.

edit: also at gig volumes I'm expecting those pickup imbalances to go away, the amp does clear up with power tube saturation but the 100 watts do terrify me for recording situations. I refuse to use an attenuator or DI/IR thing, what's the point, it never feels or sounds right; pick attack and transients are still way off. 

Had a kemper for a while, sounded good but wasn't sure if my input was me or the Kemper massaging things. Old recording with the kemper.


----------



## Australian

CLA's new free black friday Waves plugin. Could come in handy on guitars. It even has an interesting modulation effect on it.


​


----------



## twangsta

For fun


----------



## Ramo

Can any of you help me out???

i use pro tool first ( i hate it ) now my cloud storage is 45% full, i dont have any project going and i deleted and cleared local cach...

i wrote to Avid but they are not willing to help as i use pro tools first and i dont have assistants option with my acc. 

Read forums but cant find info... 

Dose anyone know how to delete everything and reset cloud storage ? 


thanks in advance


----------



## Seventh Son

twangsta said:


> Wow, that's the huge compliment, thanks. Still always open to some collab work. I'm based in India, so limited options :/
> Can't wait to get out next year to Goa and fire a band up. One of the reasons I keep trying to work on songs.
> 
> I had a fall out with my keyboard player (based in LA), we were working remotely, he had a lot of issues with the tools, remarkably technically-challenged, just couldn't get the tools, great musician but temperament and workflow was a mess, unfortunately. In the end, I gave up for that and various reasons.
> 
> That is correct about the bright cap.
> 
> In my case all those recordings have everything set to 10 except Vol2 which is at 0, I tend to keep the amp jumpered with vol2 at 0. The only reasons I can manage this is the RR100 has a great PPIMV, I'm not sure what implementation it is but it sounds very good almost from the get-go, there can be a little fuzz at whisper levels.
> 
> I use this one cab all the time, bought it new and have noticed the tone distinctly improve 3 or 4 times, over the year I've had it. Now, these are the stock Chinese made T75s. I love YJM and the tone is spot on for me. I had a buddy bring over a V30 cab, we tried them both back to back, both were good but for different things, my personal preference was the lowly T75s, like you I guess we're just used to what we're used to
> 
> Bang on about the mic placement, if I had to put a scale to it, zero being the cap edge, and 10 the outer cone edge, I'm usually around 7ish at my practice volume, as I raise the PPIMV volume I can get closer to the cap but I haven't gotten too close as I have my folks at the farm due to covid.
> 
> It's true about learning as you go; One year in with this rig and I've shed a lot of misinformation, the Vemuram Karen sounded terrible initially with the rig, put it into storage, busted it out after 9 months and damn was I surprised at how 3Dimentional, rich it was, same amp settings but on the pedal drive 0 vol full, tone middle. Learn something new every day!
> 
> I need a longer patch cable now for the NS2 loop. I've got about 5 drives including a boost! All flavours I love, though to me it's down to what works with either pickup, neck or bridge, some do both balanced, some start to lose definition on low notes with the neck pup, though in those cases I bet a V30 or something brighter may fix that, btw I did find the V30 a brighter, is that a common assessment compared to a T75, granted my T75 have been well used the V30 to so much at that point.
> 
> edit: also at gig volumes I'm expecting those pickup imbalances to go away, the amp does clear up with power tube saturation but the 100 watts do terrify me for recording situations. I refuse to use an attenuator or DI/IR thing, what's the point, it never feels or sounds right; pick attack and transients are still way off.
> 
> Had a kemper for a while, sounded good but wasn't sure if my input was me or the Kemper massaging things. Old recording with the kemper.



Lately I've been test-recording with the SM57 exactly halfway between the center of the cone and the surround (edge of the cone), on-axis, on the grille, and it sounds great as far as close-miked tone goes. After consulting a bunch of expert opinions, this video by Ace made the most sense, and after revisiting his advice and trying out his approach again, I realized that he is right. I can get very solid tones with my DSL15's volume barely above 2, which will keep the neighbor's happy.


Unfortunately, due to the directional and complex nature of guitar speakers, there is, however, no silver bullet when it comes to close-miking. You are always capturing only one aspect of the speaker's output, and usually it comes down to choosing the least evil. The mid-way position does a good job with reducing the abrasive high end, but it can sound dull and pokey in the mids. Considering how close-miking is a battle that can't be won, I think the best thing one can do is to get the amp sounding good in the room and then just accept the outcome of close-miking, whatever happens.


----------



## Seventh Son

I need your help, guys. I am trying to determine just how bad my room is for recording. I have noticed that if I play individual notes and record, when I play the C, D, and E notes (3rd, 5th, and 7th fret on A string), the recorded wave becomes fan shaped if I hold the note and apply a vibrato and let the note ring out. There is a big increase in amplitude with the note ringing out, as opposed to just hitting the note briefly or rhythmically. The phenomenon is particularly, and almost primarily, pronounced in the neighborhood of those three notes, which the graph shows as being around 130Hz–180Hz. I was wondering if someone on here with a good room could give me a reference. Have you observed the same phenomenon in good rooms, or is this sound build-up likely the result of my room's poor acoustics?


----------



## Dogs of Doom

using an open back cab/combo, you can tune the cab to the room (somewhat)...

That's why many use a closed back speaker, in a large room. The other way to tune the room is by getting some acoustic foam.

You have to make sure though, that the issue isn't a source problem though, meaning guitar/amp/speaker...


----------



## Seventh Son

Dogs of Doom said:


> using an open back cab/combo, you can tune the cab to the room (somewhat)...
> 
> That's why many use a closed back speaker, in a large room. The other way to tune the room is by getting some acoustic foam.
> 
> You have to make sure though, that the issue isn't a source problem though, meaning guitar/amp/speaker...


I am confused. First you say "using an open back cab/combo, you can tune the cab to the room," but then you say "That's why many use a closed back speaker, in a large room." Can you clarify what you mean?


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Seventh Son said:


> I am confused. First you say "using an open back cab/combo, you can tune the cab to the room," but then you say "That's why many use a closed back speaker, in a large room." Can you clarify what you mean?


open back cab's throw a lot of reflection everywhere. Closed backs are directional.

In studio, when tracking guitar, they do not place the speaker cab next to a wall. They put a 1960 in the middle of the room & mic it up close & then find distances, that are inline w/ the point of direction.

An open back shoots sound backwards & relies on a wall behind it. The sound is tuned by the wall, it's part of the overall design.

Or, in studios, they use acoustic materials, whether it be sound curtain, foam, fiber insulation/burlap, Roxwool, etc. to tune the room.

I have heard, in bass cab's, that using a tube amp w/ a ported cab, the cab will fart out at certain frequencies. I think though, that was low C, which is an octave below what you are talking about, but, the idea could be similar.

The difference though, they are saying that the speakers fart out, even at lower power settings than the rated handling capacity.

You need to figure out, if the sound is from the source, or the room. Deaden the room, then record. If you still hear it, you'll know.


----------



## Seventh Son

Dogs of Doom said:


> open back cab's throw a lot of reflection everywhere. Closed backs are directional.
> 
> In studio, when tracking guitar, they do not place the speaker cab next to a wall. They put a 1960 in the middle of the room & mic it up close & then find distances, that are inline w/ the point of direction.
> 
> An open back shoots sound backwards & relies on a wall behind it. The sound is tuned by the wall, it's part of the overall design.
> 
> Or, in studios, they use acoustic materials, whether it be sound curtain, foam, fiber insulation/burlap, Roxwool, etc. to tune the room.
> 
> I have heard, in bass cab's, that using a tube amp w/ a ported cab, the cab will fart out at certain frequencies. I think though, that was low C, which is an octave below what you are talking about, but, the idea could be similar.
> 
> The difference though, they are saying that the speakers fart out, even at lower power settings than the rated handling capacity.
> 
> You need to figure out, if the sound is from the source, or the room. Deaden the room, then record. If you still hear it, you'll know.


Can you explain what you mean by "mic it up close & then find distances, that are inline w/ the point of direction"

The question I had was not about speakers farting out, which should be impossible with a puny DSL15 with volume on 2 putting out sound through a V30, a 60-Watt speaker, and one of the stiffest, tightest speakers out there with a big magnet.

What I am talking about is a swelling of the notes (most noticeable with the C, D, and E notes on the A string, 3rd, 5th, and 7th fret), where the audio wave fans out as soon as the note is held and allowed to ring out while applying vibrato. I don't have the space or resources to acoustically proof my apartment, which is why I was wondering whether anyone of you has noticed the swelling of individual notes in more ideal rooms.


----------



## SmokeyDopey

I don't really have a good room, but those are classic problematic frequencies in the spectrum. In my experience between 120 and 200 Hz approximately.


----------



## twangsta

Does the room affect a close miked cab? I noticed room reflections had an impact, I now use curtains on that wall, kinda sorted it; though nothing serious in terms or recording on my end.

On another subject, I had a discount email from the bluguitar company, randomly clicked on it since I'm still looking for a manageable dry wet situation. Happened to read up on his speaker cable, he seems to have figured that 5 and a half feet approx is the sweet spot. I have a high-end (siren 2) 1-meter ish cable and a planet wave 20 footer, I preferred the 20 footer since it had less highs with my RR100 and 1960(stock) cab. I remember stashing the speaker cable that came with the cab, and thought I'd try it after reading his shpeel on it. I think he's right!



The stock marshall cable is much better IMHO!


----------



## twangsta

My apologies for removing older tracks. This is all for fun anyways 


This is on my recovered Lentz Croydon. RR100's PPIMV is halfway, I made a blanket cage for the cab and mic, less air and acts as a poor mans high pass filter for my untreated room! No pedals or Eq, some reverb and running it through the Asturia 1073 pre plugin, I love the sound of this plugin, well its the first time I'm using a preamp plugin really. I really like this guitar.

Happy New Years folks.
Love and Volume...!


----------



## ibmorjamn

So for silent recording I am torn , love tube amps but to loud in my new micro home .
I have always liked the simplicity of the line 6 pod 2 Now I am looking at the line 6 fire hawk effects. @ $400 it’s a lot less than helix. Set up for live but it could go right to your DAW I guess. Anyone use these ?

The other option I have is to build a reactive load box. What I already stated in this thread:
https://www.marshallforum.com/threads/load-box-di.118214/


----------



## twangsta

ibmorjamn said:


> So for silent recording I am torn , love tube amps but to loud in my new micro home .
> I have always liked the simplicity of the line 6 pod 2 Now I am looking at the line 6 fire hawk effects. @ $400 it’s a lot less than helix. Set up for live but it could go right to your DAW I guess. Anyone use these ?
> 
> The other option I have is to build a reactive load box. What I already stated in this thread:
> https://www.marshallforum.com/threads/load-box-di.118214/


I think the wise thing is to just build the reactive load box you're talking about. When I got my amp, I had the option of getting a Waza tube amp expander or a new 4x12, I'm so glad I got the cab instead. Personally, I'm in a bit of a similar situation, I'm going to be building myself an iso cab soon.

Tried some new settings on the amp and used a clean boost. I think it's a step in the right direction for me.
Cheers


----------



## twangsta




----------



## ibmorjamn

twangsta said:


>



@twangsta Very well done twangsta !


----------



## ibmorjamn

@Dogs of Doom check this out , trick compressor !


----------



## twangsta

ibmorjamn said:


> @twangsta Very well done twangsta !


Thank you


----------



## twangsta

I short improv on this Malmsteen tune, bum notes n all. 
Thought I finally got an interesting tone with the RR100 and 308.
Was using too much gain earlier, also noticed the dynamics increase a ton. 
Also surprising, it's easier to play on both hands, picking hand had to deal with less damping and fretting hand feel is oddly lighter too, very unintuitive but it's progress for me


----------



## GregM

Sorry scrolled through the first three pages and can't seem to find a sequencing for what I'm after, I wanted to go the silent route but using my existing amp ( a Lil 5dslcr) but not sure the best way to do it
There's the emulated out thing but most say that sucks, so I was wondering if a di/load box into a studio interface would do? Or do I even need the di box? And should I go from the speaker cable to the di box or from somewhere else?
I also read that the speaker takes out alot of unwanted noise which I would be bypassing, so would I need another step in there?
Sorry and Ty, I have been trying to google what I want to do but it isn't easy finding the right information


----------



## twangsta

GregM said:


> Sorry scrolled through the first three pages and can't seem to find a sequencing for what I'm after, I wanted to go the silent route but using my existing amp ( a Lil 5dslcr) but not sure the best way to do it
> There's the emulated out thing but most say that sucks, so I was wondering if a di/load box into a studio interface would do? Or do I even need the di box? And should I go from the speaker cable to the di box or from somewhere else?
> I also read that the speaker takes out alot of unwanted noise which I would be bypassing, so would I need another step in there?
> Sorry and Ty, I have been trying to google what I want to do but it isn't easy finding the right information



See if this helps, if you have any questions we can always chime in.

Warning: never stick your speaker out from the amp into anything other than a speaker can, unless you really know what you are doing.


----------



## GregM

I like option 1 but not really applicable to me as the Lil dsl and prolly the Ac I'm getting next doesn't have usb. 
Option 2 is cool and will probably be what I go for, as I've been looking at the 2x2 focusrite but someone told me go for the 4x6 to get its own power supply, but again. Not exactly what I was hoping for. 
I would like to get both the pre and power tubes cooking without going for the mic up response, I'm guessing it isn't possible thou so will have to go with option 2


----------



## GregM

I do kinda get blowback. Of signal is bad, why I'm asking. 
I'm not recording to recreate or to publish but just to hear myself critically and try to improve my playing


----------



## twangsta

GregM said:


> I do kinda get blowback. Of signal is bad, why I'm asking.
> I'm not recording to recreate or to publish but just to hear myself critically and try to improve my playing


Hi, I'm sorry have checked the forum in a while. I hope your situation is better, if not let us know and I'll check here more often if I can help in any way.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

recording using reference mic's...



they make some good mic's


----------



## twangsta

Dogs of Doom said:


> recording using reference mic's...
> 
> 
> 
> they make some good mic's



That made my day; thanks, what a beautiful song and sound.


----------



## junk notes

twangsta said:


> That made my day; thanks, what a beautiful song and sound.


If you like that music and the equipment used, look into Candy Rat artists. 

Also Al DiMeola is coming out with a show from the same venue… but the next night. Saturday Night in San Francisco!!!!


----------



## Dogs of Doom

twangsta said:


> That made my day; thanks, what a beautiful song and sound.


no prob...

I just thought it was a good exercise/study on using, say, 2 mic's on everything in an ensemble, recorded separately.

The reference mic's are theoretically flat freq response & a full range of frequency.

This is the thing though, while I'm not a big SM57 fanboy, if you did similar theory w/ a pair of SM57s, you should be able to get a great sound doing something similar.

Would it be the same/comparable? Probably not, but, it should be good in it's own rite.

Get a couple good condenser mic's & you'll have a comparable production, still different.

I remember, one of the 1st real sound gigs I had, that's all we had was SM57 mic's. The weakest part of the production was the vocals, because the SM57's were thin sounding. Everything else sounded right up. We had 30 SM57's. Mic's the drums, guitars. Bass went direct. The lead vocalist had his own mic, so his vocals sounded good.

That's where I did discover that, at least, if you had nothing but SM57's, you should be able to get acceptable results. If not, it's not the SM57's fault...

Still, there's better mic's available, for almost everything, but, they are generally specialty & cost more, & aren't as versatile.

Earthworks, also makes a mic, that's set out to be the SM7 killer...



I've always wanted an SM7, but never got around to it. Recently, I acquired an AKG D112, which makes for a great guitar & bass mic.

But, I always thought that the SM7 would do that well, as well. Partly, because it has a low inherent volume transfer. Some people use it on kickdrums, as well as the AKG.

I'd like to score a pair of the Earthworks & see what they do. In the voiceover comparison, the Earthworks does seem to kill the SM7, but, then again, it's an Earthworks commercial...


----------



## Riffraff

GregM said:


> I like option 1 but not really applicable to me as the Lil dsl and prolly the Ac I'm getting next doesn't have usb.
> Option 2 is cool and will probably be what I go for, as I've been looking at the 2x2 focusrite but someone told me go for the 4x6 to get its own power supply, but again. Not exactly what I was hoping for.
> I would like to get both the pre and power tubes cooking without going for the mic up response, I'm guessing it isn't possible thou so will have to go with option 2



I use a variety of methods but all involve an interface. If I want to record one of my tube amps I hook it to an attenuator and adjust that for the full load, silent setting and run the line out from the attenuator into my interface. Since I'm not using speakers in that setup I use speaker impulse responses. You can download Two-Notes Torpedo for free and there are a number of free speaker IR's available on the web you can load into it. I bought Michael Nielsen's "Big Hairy Cabs" cabinet IR set from Two-Notes for $50 which comes loaded with 112, 212 & 412 cabs with a variety of classic speaker and mic simulations in it. I downloaded a few cool effects plugins too which are really cool from Valhalla. Another method I use is to run a tube rack preamp into my interface and use the cab & effects simulations with that. And the last method I sometimes use is straight into the interface and use amp plugins. Poulin offers a number of free one's you can mess around with. They don't have a lot of options in them but they have 6 or so that sound pretty good. My favorite is LeGion. You use speaker IR's with these too otherwise they sound harsh as hell.

I made this clip with Poulin's LeGion amp plugin and Valhalla Suppermassive which is their free delay/reverb/echo plugin. It sounds really good.



I used my Rocktron Plexi rack preamp at 5:30 am this morning with my wife asleep in the next room to try out another free effects plugin from Valhalla I downloaded this morning called Space Modulator. I downloaded a country/blues jam track someone posted and did a quick lead track over short piece of it so hear what the plugin sounded like. This preset is called "cool as sh!t" lol! It has a ton of them in it and they are all tweakable so you can make your own. Some are really crazy sounding. Here's the clip.



There are a lot of cool options out there for silent or near silent recording and you don't need to spend much at all to get cool results. I'm using total entry level stuff. Most of my pedals cost more than what I spent on my current DAW.


----------



## GregM

That sounds like a cool way to go with the attenuator, I'll try that thanks.
I have been thinking ( strange for me) and I've used the emulated out on my dsl straight to headphones and I'm guessing they don't draw 16 ohms so I could just go straight from emulated out to ir? In the manual I believe I saw posted on here to unplug the speaker and use the emulated out for headphones so I assume could do the same to an ir?


----------



## ibmorjamn

The amps need speaker load but some of the newer ones play on stand by with emulated out. According to the manual for said amp.


----------



## Riffraff

Another almost no volume 4:30 am clip recorded this morning. It was too early to *RAWK* so I went with chill instead. 

Tele > Rocktron ValveSonic Plexi tube preamp > Two Notes Torpedo > Valhalla Supermassive & Space Modulator plugins (free downloads that are fantastic!)


----------



## Sapient

Groovy man. Diggin' it. Should be more of this stuff here.


----------



## Phoenix1

Barfly said:


> I think unrelated to knob twisting but that I am finding [finally] the importance of.. is patience. Up until recently I'd write a song, arrange it.. change things. Then I'd go in and quickly lay it down to "tape."
> 
> I'd do bass to a click (I am weak at bass) and if there was something not quite right I'd say, "F" it after a couple of attempts to nail it. Same with guitar parts, synth or solos.
> 
> When I'd listen later I'd be like, hot damn, you are one lazy mother-fookahlicious dude. They (errors) stand out no matter how small and the going back later never seems to materialize.
> 
> Now if it takes me 666 takes I will try and make that devil do what I say. At the end of the day something might still squeak by due to me playing to a click and not the actual drums. Maybe clicks work for you, not for me though. I like the actual drum parts. My boy (bassist) told me he's done it and there is a lot of wiggle room still for timing errors using a click.
> 
> The other part of patience I am still working on is: I try to get the best sound per instrument that I can squeeze out right now. Get the best you can. I record dry and then mess with effects later.
> 
> I would initially say "F" it, I will go back in later and redo with better guitar tone, bass tone.. etc. and I really fugged a song up this way when a singer I don't have a lot of access to did a killer sexy job on a song I was like, let me hurry thru this so she can do her thing. She was awesome, me, not so much. LoL. I guess to sum up:
> 
> Take your time, get the best sound and performance you can get right now. It'll give you a solid foundation to build on.





Barfly said:


> I think unrelated to knob twisting but that I am finding [finally] the importance of.. is patience. Up until recently I'd write a song, arrange it.. change things. Then I'd go in and quickly lay it down to "tape."
> 
> I'd do bass to a click (I am weak at bass) and if there was something not quite right I'd say, "F" it after a couple of attempts to nail it. Same with guitar parts, synth or solos.
> 
> When I'd listen later I'd be like, hot damn, you are one lazy mother-fookahlicious dude. They (errors) stand out no matter how small and the going back later never seems to materialize.
> 
> Now if it takes me 666 takes I will try and make that devil do what I say. At the end of the day something might still squeak by due to me playing to a click and not the actual drums. Maybe clicks work for you, not for me though. I like the actual drum parts. My boy (bassist) told me he's done it and there is a lot of wiggle room still for timing errors using a click.
> 
> The other part of patience I am still working on is: I try to get the best sound per instrument that I can squeeze out right now. Get the best you can. I record dry and then mess with effects later.
> 
> I would initially say "F" it, I will go back in later and redo with better guitar tone, bass tone.. etc. and I really fugged a song up this way when a singer I don't have a lot of access to did a killer sexy job on a song I was like, let me hurry thru this so she can do her thing. She was awesome, me, not so much. LoL. I guess to sum up:
> 
> Take your time, get the best sound and performance you can get right now. It'll give you a solid foundation to build on.



I am just the opposite, I started with guitar back in the 1960s but picked up a bass and found with guitar experience I was born to play bass. I loved it ! I played bass for years in a really good Rock band but now retired picking up the guitar again, which never really stopped completely, i am having a ball all by myself. I have several amps and a nice recording outfit, reel to reel, marantz cassette with USB plugged into computer with a digitizing program so I can put all my stuff on a disk. So between the two recorders I can lay down several tracks or keep them separated. I am a novice at the recording part but I can get the job done. I dont claim to be a pro at all just an avid tryer !


----------



## Riffraff

I made 2 more 4:30 am clips in the last few days. Both were jam track challenges I downloaded from another forum. The first is REALLY cheesy so I went with the spirit of the clip. It makes think of watered down well drinks and dudes in Members Only jackets. 



The 2nd was from this morning. The jam track is a piano ballad so I put left & right call & answer type leads on it using a rotary effect on the left and just delay in the right with different cab IR's so they sound different. I used my Peavey Rockmaster that I bought for almost nothing and fixed so I made the video about that.


----------



## Riffraff

Delete


----------



## Seventh Son

How do you guys deal with the issue of cloudiness when close miking. I find if really hard to find a mic placement with an SM57 that captures the presence well. Typically, the mic placement that does best in terms of capturing the crunch, but not the high-end fizz, is around halfway between cap edge and surround, but then the resulting tone is very thick and muddy. In order to approximate the brightness of the amp in the room, albeit very imperfectly, due to the excessive bass content from the close mic, I have to crank the presence knob to the point where it tears you head off in the room.

Basically, my question is, how do you guys achieve presence and clarity in your close-miked tracks?


----------



## LRT#1

Well ill jump in here
This is mcblink and I trying our hands at recording.
Equipment
Scarlett 8i8
Sm57
Peavey 580
Tascam 80
Reaper

Marshall 2203x volume 1.3
JJ 20 watt volume 3.5
Dean select
Gibson explorer traditional

This was close mic and also live recording so there is some flubs. There was no EQ work done this is strait into the daw.
Is there any suggestion to what can be done to make the recording better without using the EQ in reaper?


----------



## Dogs of Doom

@ around 1:40-1:50, that 2nd guitar is buried...

There will be some eq requirements to keep the guitars cutting through w/o competing for the same space, if using a single amp setup....


----------



## LRT#1

This is somting we fought for a bit not sure if its an eq problem on amps or a placement problem on mics. I lean more towards eq on amps would maybe help.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

yeah, you could try mixing down w/ some EQ scoops. The overall volume of guitar 2 though, is very low, almost inaudible...


----------



## LRT#1

Now im trying to figure out should i bump presence or volume to get a better balance of amps or adjust levels of incoming/outgoing in reaper


----------



## mcblink

Garbage in, garbage out.
We should make the amps sound as best as possible (mixed) _before _we record, in order to minimize work in the DAW (because I hate runnin' the farkin' thing)
I say we take another look at your EQ pedal, maybe boost some mids or punch up your volume a hair, (or turn mine down a hair) and I mean, we can always adjust levels in the DAW too

We're beyond green at the recording game.....


----------



## mcblink

Here's what I accomplished today. First try at building something from scratch....
I'll spare you all the terrible noise and keep it short....lol

I'm seriously not good at this stuff....it frustrates me more than anything, lol


----------



## mcblink

Here's a different take, with some different settings... 
Any better?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Ramo

mcblink said:


> Garbage in, garbage out.
> We should make the amps sound as best as possible (mixed) _before _we record, in order to minimize work in the DAW (because I hate runnin' the farkin' thing)
> I say we take another look at your EQ pedal, maybe boost some mids or punch up your volume a hair, (or turn mine down a hair) and I mean, we can always adjust levels in the DAW too
> 
> We're beyond green at the recording game.....


The mini mixing desk could help as well. In my humble opinion, get a good amp tone, then find the sweet spot on the cab with a mic, then record. when you have recorded everything, then start playing with the mix. Like adding a compressor, EQ, and so on. Once you are happy then you have to master the track to bring the track to life. The mastering its own art form and takes skills to do it right.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

mcblink said:


> Here's a different take, with some different settings...
> Any better?
> 
> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯



still, the lead guitar is buried...

the rest of the mix sounds fine. It's just, you're playing that stuff, in the background, & it's illegible... &, I'm listening deeper into the mix, than the casual listener ever will... way deeper...


----------



## LRT#1

Dogs thanks for the honesty thats all i ever ask
Gives us somthing to work on with a more equal balance


----------



## saxon68

Not sure if this is the right place for this, but Line 6 is giving away copies of Helix Native and Cubase Elements for purchasers of Helix floor, LT, rack, and control, for purchases from Sept 14 2021 until Feb 28, 2022.


----------



## PowerTube44

Late to the party on this thread, but I'll post one of my meager offerings. This goes with my third novel, just a quick snippet done on a Carvin DC600 across a Boss GT-100, straight into the PC. The recorder was Audacity, cleanup by GoldWave, and mixed with an old version of Cool Edit Pro.

I was going for sort of a mystery/horror feel.

*Molly's Theme*


----------



## DreamerDeceiver

LRT#1 said:


> Well ill jump in here
> This is mcblink and I trying our hands at recording.
> Equipment
> Scarlett 8i8
> Sm57
> Peavey 580
> Tascam 80
> Reaper
> 
> Marshall 2203x volume 1.3
> JJ 20 watt volume 3.5
> Dean select
> Gibson explorer traditional
> 
> This was close mic and also live recording so there is some flubs. There was no EQ work done this is strait into the daw.
> Is there any suggestion to what can be done to make the recording better without using the EQ in reaper?








Great tone !
Great riffs !

Old post....yeah yeah


----------



## DreamerDeceiver

mcblink said:


> Here's a different take, with some different settings...
> Any better?
> 
> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯





So is this your original material , or a cover?


----------



## SmokeyDopey

Dogs of Doom said:


> still, the lead guitar is buried...
> 
> the rest of the mix sounds fine. It's just, you're playing that stuff, in the background, & it's illegible... &, I'm listening deeper into the mix, than the casual listener ever will... way deeper...



I agree, it can be a bit more up front. I'd widen some stuff a bit. The drums are wide, and the guitars feel a bit close together more in the middle in general.
Good tones to work with there


----------



## mcblink

DreamerDeceiver said:


> So is this your original material , or a cover?


Original material.

We had a good run there where we were writing like crazy. Lately the pot's just been simmering with not much new to offer.


----------



## mcblink

SmokeyDopey said:


> I agree, it can be a bit more up front. I'd widen some stuff a bit. The drums are wide, and the guitars feel a bit close together more in the middle in general.
> Good tones to work with there


Is the suggestion to separate the guitars more?
They are single tracked, and were recorded simultaneously, 2 separate players. Perhaps double track each guitar and give more contrast to the tones of each guitar, or?


----------



## DreamerDeceiver

I hate to compare musicians styles.

But, 
If you took Metallica-Slayer-Helmet , and locked em in a room.

This is right up my alley.
Seriously, I could listen to this sheet all day. Im far from a professional, but I am a consumer. 
Personally, the sound/tone is spot on for me . Not so simple, yet complex and interesting ,not overdone.
Driving gallops,great riffs.
Clearly we share the same ears in music, ....................Brother?
.......so please keep that pot simmering.


----------



## SmokeyDopey

mcblink said:


> Is the suggestion to separate the guitars more?
> They are single tracked, and were recorded simultaneously, 2 separate players. Perhaps double track each guitar and give more contrast to the tones of each guitar, or?



Oh Ok, got it. Maybe when the riff "opens up", during certain parts double tracked? I'm not sure how I would spread it out. Because a stereo widener will just make it sound a bit "phasey"


----------



## mcblink

SmokeyDopey said:


> Oh Ok, got it. Maybe when the riff "opens up", during certain parts double tracked? I'm not sure how I would spread it out. Because a stereo widener will just make it sound a bit "phasey"


It's a little weird because we don't necessarily stick to the one guy being strictly rhythm and the other a lead, we sort of both trade off and on....
I mean, I guess we actually kinda do though, as I'm always doing the actual solos while @LRT#1 always holds down the rhythm for me during those parts, but aside from that, all bets are off...we try very hard to not have both guitars playing the same exact thing all the time. This can either work really well or it can sound like complete chaos...

Another thing is there's no bass in that recording. I would bet that if there was, it would be a muddy mess without EQ'ing the guitars quite a bit differently than they are here, but I'm no recording expert...we're not new to the jamming thing, but we're very new to the recording thing, so maybe I'm completely wrong lol

Next time we try to record something, I'll try EQ'ing the amps so as to give more contrast between the two and see if that helps out at all


----------



## mcblink

DreamerDeceiver said:


> I hate to compare musicians styles.
> 
> But,
> If you took Metallica-Slayer-Helmet , and locked em in a room.
> 
> This is right up my alley.
> Seriously, I could listen to this sheet all day. Im far from a professional, but I am a consumer.
> Personally, the sound/tone is spot on for me . Not so simple, yet complex and interesting ,not overdone.
> Driving gallops,great riffs.
> Clearly we share the same ears in music, ....................Brother?
> .......so please keep that pot simmering.


Thank you sir, we're glad you dig it, it was fun to create. There are many influences that can be found in there, a couple of which you picked right up on, and there's a couple that may surprise you too, though they're a little bit less obvious...


----------



## DreamerDeceiver

mcblink said:


> Thank you sir, we're glad you dig it, it was fun to create. There are many influences that can be found in there, a couple of which you picked right up on, and there's a couple that may surprise you too, though they're a little bit less obvious...



Keep it up, post em if ya got em.

Ahem, please dont ruin it with a bad singer , and biker bar lyrics. LOL 
* no offense to the biker bands with bad singers*

FNM?


----------



## mcblink

DreamerDeceiver said:


> Keep it up, post em if ya got em.
> 
> Ahem, please dont ruin it with a bad singer , and biker bar lyrics. LOL
> * no offense to the biker bands with bad singers*
> 
> FNM?


I sometimes step up to the mic in lieu of a real vocalist, but I try not to pretend to be THE vocalist...and I'll never record my own voice lol

I DO attempt to write lyrics. I have something in the works for that one, but it isn't complete yet, and I would prefer to find someone who can properly execute them rather than have myself butcher them lol
I'm kinda wanting to hear a Randy Blythe-esque type of vox on that one for some reason



Here's something we recorded quite a while back, one of the first recordings we ever did; it's a bit more laid back, and to me at least, sounds almost like a Countdown/Youthanasia era 'deth song. It's been renamed "Eaten Alive" and the inspiration came from the Werner Herzog documentary _Grizzly Man.
_


I do have some working lyrics for it, but no singer lol


----------



## DreamerDeceiver

mcblink said:


> I sometimes step up to the mic in lieu of a real vocalist, but I try not to pretend to be THE vocalist...and I'll never record my own voice lol
> 
> I DO attempt to write lyrics. I have something in the works for that one, but it isn't complete yet, and I would prefer to find someone who can properly execute them rather than have myself butcher them lol
> I'm kinda wanting to hear a Randy Blythe-esque type of vox on that one for some reason
> 
> 
> 
> Here's something we recorded quite a while back, one of the first recordings we ever did; it's a bit more laid back, and to me at least, sounds almost like a Countdown/Youthanasia era 'deth song. It's been renamed "Eaten Alive" and the inspiration came from the Werner Herzog documentary _Grizzly Man.
> _
> 
> 
> I do have some working lyrics for it, but no singer lol





Has a Lynch -Demartini tone to it.


----------



## mcblink

DreamerDeceiver said:


> Has a Lynch -Demartini tone to it.


Most of our other garbage can be located somewhere in the depths of the Riffs thread, I don't really want to shit this one up with old cellphone recordings of trash lol
I think maybe I might have lied to you, as I'm almost sure that we _did_ record a song with myself on vox, but it was recorded with a phone, sounds like ass, and we were very drunk at the time...I'll leave it to you to dig up if you really want to, but my feelings wouldn't be hurt if I never heard it again LOL


----------



## mcblink

DreamerDeceiver said:


> FNM?


'Tallica
Slayer
LoG
Slipknot
Gojira
AiC (specifically Jerry)
Mastodon (specifically Bill)
Probably missed a couple more
A good dose of our own interpretations of each

We just take a bunch of different elements from a bunch of different songs that we like, and try to mash them all together in a way that creates something new


----------



## DreamerDeceiver

I'll dig for it.
Metal with a chunky bottom is where its at ,...no tinny-trebly crap for me.

Im your first groupie !


----------



## DreamerDeceiver

.


----------



## mcblink

DreamerDeceiver said:


> I'll dig for it.
> Metal with a chunky bottom is where its at ,...no tinny-trebly crap for me.
> 
> Im your first groupie !
> 
> View attachment 94871


I'm flattered!
Um....are you female, at least?


----------



## DreamerDeceiver

mcblink said:


> I'm flattered!
> Um....are you female, at least?


----------



## mcblink




----------



## twangsta

Just got the hot rod custom edition, really enjoying it. The dynamics are what hit me after the initial buzz, amazing pedal.


Some random clip from this morning.





There's no eq applied on either track to the guitar, some gain, mild compression and reverb.

YJM strat (SD fury) neck pickup -> RR100 -> stock 1960B -> SM56 -> DAW


----------



## Dogs of Doom

ok, I fixed the links...

but, the tracks are set to private:




both are...


----------



## twangsta

Dogs of Doom said:


> ok, I fixed the links...
> 
> but, the tracks are set to private:
> 
> View attachment 96095
> 
> 
> both are...


Thanks, I made them public, and updated the links, for some reason that's not working either for me.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

twangsta said:


> Thanks, I made them public, and updated the links, for some reason that's not working either for me.


because you are putting too much in the url/code...


----------



## Dogs of Doom

read this to the end...

https://www.marshallforum.com/threads/why-i-cant-post-sound-cloud-links.123030/


----------



## twangsta

Dogs of Doom said:


> read this to the end...
> 
> https://www.marshallforum.com/threads/why-i-cant-post-sound-cloud-links.123030/


Thanks brother


----------



## SmokeyDopey




----------



## mcblink

@LRT#1 put this up in the riffs thread last night, I thought here maybe we might get some insight or opinions on this mix vs. the last one we did, where @Dogs of Doom and @SmokeyDopey mentioned the two guitars burying each other. We spent the last few days working on this one, and then last night I played with some minor EQ adjustments on the individual tracks. Also, we double tracked all guitars, and I also played bass on this one, so we've added another instrument, it's double tracked as well.

So what we did differently this time was:
A) Double track instruments
B) Added bass guitar
C) EQ adjustment on every individual guitar/bass track after recording

On my end, I used a Gib Explorer > Crybaby > JJ Jr. > BOSS CH-1 > BOSS GE-7 > SM57

LRT: Dean V > Tube Screamer > 2203x > BOSS GE-7 > PVM580

Focusrite Scarlett 18i8 and Reaper

....in case anyone was interested in that part...

Does this mix sound better than the last one? (YT4beers or whatever it was)
Is there too much of the bass guitar? Is there an improved definition of the two guitars? Should I try to separate them even more?
Aside from the sloppy playing, what else might we try to improve the overall sound quality? Should I play with EQing the drum track?

Suggestions, critiques, insults, whatever; lay it on us. It's how we learn things.


----------



## DreamerDeceiver




----------



## SmokeyDopey

Yeah man, that sounds better. I would still widen the rhythm guitars. If you are double tracking them, I would try panning them harder. But they aren't getting buried like the previous one you posted.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

yeah, the balance there is a lot better, than the one a while back.

I think the drums could use some EQ. Is it just a single track? or ?

The cymbals sound a bit too live/prominent. 

I think the thing that was wrong w/ the other track, is, that the lead guitar was buried. The supporting guitar was where it should have been.

In this, the lead guitar is the lead guitar & the supporting guitar is doing just that, supporting the lead.

Bass too loud? no such thing! ... JK! It sounds pretty balanced to me. Some metallers in this genre though, like bass less prominant & some like it a little more. 

You listed guitar gear, how about bass gear? 

Maybe a little more midrange on the bass? Just a little to try & get some of the string brilliance ringing at opportune x's. Just be careful, because you don't want to throw the balance out of whack. Just subtle changes.


----------



## SmokeyDopey

Yeah, thanks DoD I forgot about the bass. The bass is fine there! 
And like DoD said, it can vary, sometimes more, sometimes less (...And justice for all? )


----------



## mcblink

SmokeyDopey said:


> Yeah man, that sounds better. I would still widen the rhythm guitars. If you are double tracking them, I would try panning them harder. But they aren't getting buried like the previous one you posted.


Awesome, great! Thanks for your reply!
This was the first time we've tried double tracking, and it didn't cross my mind at the time to try panning them, they're all just centered. I'll mess with that and see what happens.



Dogs of Doom said:


> yeah, the balance there is a lot better, than the one a while back.
> 
> I think the drums could use some EQ. Is it just a single track? or ?
> 
> The cymbals sound a bit too live/prominent.
> 
> I think the thing that was wrong w/ the other track, is, that the lead guitar was buried. The supporting guitar was where it should have been.
> 
> In this, the lead guitar is the lead guitar & the supporting guitar is doing just that, supporting the lead.
> 
> Bass too loud? no such thing! ... JK! It sounds pretty balanced to me. Some metallers in this genre though, like bass less prominant & some like it a little more.
> 
> You listed guitar gear, how about bass gear?
> 
> Maybe a little more midrange on the bass? Just a little to try & get some of the string brilliance ringing at opportune x's. Just be careful, because you don't want to throw the balance out of whack. Just subtle changes.


So the drums are something I ripped from YT, converted it to an MP3, and inserted into the DAW, it's only one track, but there are two separate waveforms within that one track. Like it was bounced, I dunno... But yes, I hear what you mean about the cymbals, like they're a touch too hot. I suppose I would want to drop some dB out of the higher freq ranges to alleviate that a little bit?

As far as bass gear, LRT was able to borrow an old Celebrity bass from a coworker. Looks kinda like a Jackson. I think the last time the strings were changed was probably in like, 1987! lol!
I just played it into my JJ Jr. using the clean channel 'cause I didn't have a bass amp lol. Making do, I guess. But I dunno how far I can get with strings like that, as far as 'brilliance' goes...I'm not really a bass player, either, and that was my first time ever recording one, but I have to admit that it was pretty fun to do! I can try boosting the mids and see where that takes us though.



Thanks, you guys! It reaffirms to me that we're heading in the right direction.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

boil the bass strings!


----------



## SmokeyDopey

I was just thinking, the bass can use a little more clarity, somewhere around 1kHz - 3kHz approx. haha makes sense if those are old strings.
Boiling works. They don't sound like new, but it definitely clears them up


----------



## SmokeyDopey

mcblink said:


> it didn't cross my mind at the time to try panning them


ohhh dude... you're gonna flip out.


----------



## mcblink

Well, hey, we could probably actually try boiling them.
I've always kinda wondered how well that works anyway.
Maybe it's gonna be science experiment night!

I feel a bit retarded for not having tried panning yet already lol seems obvious now that I think about it. I must have been distracted! lol

Smokey, when you say 'clarity' would you suggest a boost or a drop in that freq range? I'm assuming a small boost there? Or should I cut?


----------



## SmokeyDopey

Correcto, boost in that range. But it's just a ballpark, you'd have to try that and see how it sounds in context.
And not much really, just a couple dB


----------



## mcblink

Ok, cool. Will do, thanks for your help!


----------



## Sapient

SmokeyDopey said:


>



Nice gear there man. Bet that room makes for a good place to make all your rock-n-roll music.


----------



## DreamerDeceiver

Distracted,
.........yeah that it !

I like the sound.

Not adhering to one specific tone,.......keeps it interesting.
Rock on guys


----------



## SmokeyDopey

Sapient said:


> Nice gear there man. Bet that room makes for a good place to make all your rock-n-roll music.


Thanks man! It's my drummer's place (and gear) actually. But he lets me play with his toys 

It's a pretty cool room. Small, but sounds nice recorded. The roof isn't too high, but it has an angle, so that helps. We've been sound checking for the past few weeks with the kit's position in the room, mic positioning, drum tunings, different pres, and that Ampex 440B 8 track 1" reel to reel.


----------



## LRT#1

Thanks for the input and coments its always appreciated


----------



## Headache

I wrote and recorded this from scratch today.
For one I'm really happy with the back line!
I have to use YouTube drums, then I write the song around the beat.

For those that care, I used my Marshall TSL, Epiphone explorer with Seymour Duncan emty blackouts. Only pedal is an EHX East River Drive. 1960a cabinet, mic is sm57 on a T-75.
The soft part is my Frankenstein Jackson warrior.

I wrote this one for one of my former students and athletes. She was one of my favorites. Grew up kind of poor, I fed her often. Got her through school barely.... She Made some bad decisions, ended up overdosing and she was dead at 19.

Anyhow, here's December.


----------



## ricksdisconnected

anybody here know what ever happened to the OP? 
what a cool guy he was. is.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

ricksdisconnected said:


> anybody here know what ever happened to the OP?
> what a cool guy he was. is.


IDK, he disappeared. He was active on other sites as well & just dropped off all of them. He was going to take over the Roadhouse, & he disappeared there too, leaving the old owner to take the reigns back...


----------



## ricksdisconnected

Dogs of Doom said:


> IDK, he disappeared. He was active on other sites as well & just dropped off all of them. He was going to take over the Roadhouse, & he disappeared there too, leaving the old owner to take the reigns back...




damn doom, i hope hes ok bro. what a cool guy. 
i wonder if there is a way to see if he left all the sites about the same time?
i dont know the other ones but........
dude use to put up the best food pics too. only Blink could come close.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

yes, he did... although, it seems that he checked in here some time last year, but never popped in to say anything...


----------



## mcblink

ricksdisconnected said:


> damn doom, i hope hes ok bro. what a cool guy.
> i wonder if there is a way to see if he left all the sites about the same time?
> i dont know the other ones but........
> dude use to put up the best food pics too. only Blink could come close.


I dunno about that lol
I try haha

Blues was awesome.

I found him on a boomstick forum about a year ago. That's not to say we interacted at all, we didn't. But he was active there more recently than he was active here. I was searching...

I have often wondered where he went, or if he's okay, along with several other people that used to be regulars here, and have seemed to be MIA.

The internet is an interesting, yet enigmatic "thing"(place?)

I want to believe it's by choice, and not death....or something like it .


----------



## ricksdisconnected

Dogs of Doom said:


> yes, he did... although, it seems that he checked in here some time last year, but never popped in to say anything...




i hate it when members go missing like this. he was heavy on here too not like some that just 
pop in every so often to say whats up or show new toys. 
i just sent a 2nd PM to him as i did probably one 6 months ago too.


----------



## ricksdisconnected

mcblink said:


> I want to believe it's by choice, and not death....or something like it .



you and me both brother. heres to BnQ's 
the mans food pics would make you eat your own grill trying to keep up. 
12 lb slab of meat isnt easy on a grill but he sure made it look that way didnt he?


----------



## Sapient

I'd say when someone is quite active, terms are good, then they just disappear, that things are very bad in most cases. Just sayin'. Doesn't seem to be of regular behavior to just stop on a dime like that (considering sentence 1). There is jail too, I guess.

I didn't know him, but this is not my first time with the case.

*edit* - Or maybe not. Or ..maybe. Or maybe ..or both.


----------



## Crikey

Ghostman said:


> I'd love to have a dedicated "Recording" subforum. It's been asked for before and hailed by many to be a great idea.
> 
> But deleting old threads seems to be a priority.
> 
> What is everyone's general recording process? Such as what do you record first?
> 
> Drums?
> Bass?
> Guitar?
> 
> I've heard many MANY times that drums and bass are always laid first. I've had a hard time actually putting a song together from some of the riffs I've come up with. No idea how to proceed without a drummer/bass player and/or instruments to cover these.


I always start with drums, then guitar, then bass and vocals


----------



## ricksdisconnected

Sapient said:


> I'd say when someone is quite active, terms are good, then they just disappear, that things are very bad in most cases. Just sayin'. Doesn't seem to be of regular behavior to just stop on a dime like that (considering sentence 1). There is jail too, I guess.
> 
> I didn't know him, but this is not my first time with the case.




yeah but wanna stay positive though.


----------



## Seventh Son

I have a few quick questions for you guys. Does this sound to you like it was recorded with a distant mic across the room? Or could this sound be achieved with an SM57 on the speaker? Or perhaps a combo of the two? Feel free to comment on anything else that you notice in the recording. For example, does that sound like a boosted Marshall to you, or could it be just straight into a JCM800 style amp? I also wonder how much gain was used. The guitars sound very noise-free, so it sounds like there's very little distortion dialed in, but then again, there's a fair amount of sustain that can't be achieved with lower-gain settings, so my ears are not sure. Some people think there's some kind of chorusing effect on the guitars and a short delay. I don't hear it. Do you? I appreciate your insight.


----------



## Dogs of Doom

Seventh Son said:


> I have a few quick questions for you guys. Does this sound to you like it was recorded with a distant mic across the room? Or could this sound be achieved with an SM57 on the speaker? Or perhaps a combo of the two? Feel free to comment on anything else that you notice in the recording. For example, does that sound like a boosted Marshall to you, or could it be just straight into a JCM800 style amp? I also wonder how much gain was used. The guitars sound very noise-free, so it sounds like there's very little distortion dialed in, but then again, there's a fair amount of sustain that can't be achieved with lower-gain settings, so my ears are not sure. Some people think there's some kind of chorusing effect on the guitars and a short delay. I don't hear it. Do you? I appreciate your insight.



sounds like 2 takes, one recorded close & one recorded at a distance...

Hard to say what reverbs are used, as they seem to be used sparingly, but are there...


----------



## ibmorjamn

BnC is missed here. He was a great help with recording. He used a Marshall JMP 1 pre amp and always had great tone.
He is the one that told me about mixcraft DAW.
Unfortunately he must got ticked off here. He left by choice. He was a mod on roadhouse but I don’t hang there. I would like to see around again.

Since my recent keyboard and ez drummer purchase things have not been easy. (Pun yes) I am being basically forced to use Abelton live. Not all bad but I am used to Mixcraft. On going frustration. I have begun to set up my software on the regular computer instead of the laptop. I will probably use that for guitar and then import over Abelton and use my Roland interface on the other now main setup.
Crap just gets more complicated!


----------



## ibmorjamn

Dogs of Doom said:


> sounds like 2 takes, one recorded close & one recorded at a distance...
> 
> Hard to say what reverbs are used, as they seem to be used sparingly, but are there...


I am guessing reverb was added post because it tends to not sit well with heavy distortion rhythm at least to me. There is always reverb and some boost on solos, separate track.
Love the isolated tracks.
They use some overdrive in to 800’s at some point but when and where I have no idea. It does sound like a pushed 800 2204 .


----------



## Seventh Son

I am looking into buying an LDC to practice with distant miking and see whether I can get closer to my desired sound. My goal is to get something like the guy in the video below, starting at 4:42.


With my budget ($300 maximum), the best I can do is something like the Rode NT1 or NT1A or an AT2023, of which both are plain cardioid polarity (no omni or figure-8 pattern). Do you think that this would be a good investment for chasing the kind of room tone Maiden seem to have achieved on _Piece of Mind_ and _Powerslave_, or should I save up for something like the AKG314 that has the additional polarity patterns? Is an omni-directional mic an absolutely necessary tool to get reasonably close to what I am after?


----------



## ibmorjamn

There is no place on this forum to talk about electronic devices. I know it’s a amp forum but I don’t do to many forums.
I have become frustrated with my recent purchase. It is a software nightmare.
Launchkey MK 3 , Abelton 11 live and the toontrack ez drummer. EZ drummer works fine. I am sure it is simple I just need to figure it out .


----------



## twangsta

WIP


Been struggling to transition to the heavier bits, yet to come. What worked better was dropping the gain. I could still do with less.

Revival hotrod custom into an RR100.

edit: updated the track link with a newer version, added a bridge and riff at the end. Not happy with the double bass drums, it's a place holder for now, also need to beef that section up with bass and change the guitar to one with HB pups.

What do you guys think of the last riff, works? It's a bit choppy midway, and the slightly odd time signature 6/8 I think, needs gluing, half tracked and just added on for not, testing ideas.


----------



## twangsta

Got better at the transitions.


----------



## George Dickens

twangsta said:


> Got better at the transitions.



"...guys think of the last riff, works? It's a bit choppy midway, and the slightly odd time signature 6/8 "
I think its a cool riff but it only seems to work sometime when it enters specifically when the crash cymbol strikes - it fits great. IMO


----------



## Sapient

Il Surrealista said:


> "...guys think of the last riff, works? It's a bit choppy midway, and the slightly odd time signature 6/8 "
> I think its a cool riff but it only seems to work sometime when it enters specifically when the crash cymbol strikes - it fits great. IMO



That's very cool, but if you are gonna have vocals you're way over doing it. The intro as it appears to be before the verse makes the musical statement for the song and you're "losing it" then going all over the place.

The intro appears to be going into a verse which is cool. You could come back to that intro riff for 4 bars after the first verse. Then do the verse again, then a chorus, then a solo since you have eaten time with the intro.

I would go out with that intro riff too ...alone.

*edit - Great then.


----------



## twangsta

Il Surrealista said:


> "...guys think of the last riff, works? It's a bit choppy midway, and the slightly odd time signature 6/8 "
> I think its a cool riff but it only seems to work sometime when it enters specifically when the crash cymbol strikes - it fits great. IMO


Thank you so much, you are absolutely right, when it enters with the crash is when it works, I was struggling with that given the little time I had. Your point is going to help me a lot tomorrow. Thanks again!



Sapient said:


> That's very cool, but if you are gonna have vocals you're way over doing it. The intro as it appears to be before the verse makes the musical statement for the song and you're "losing it" then going all over the place.
> 
> The intro appears to be going into a verse which is cool. You could come back to that intro riff for 4 bars after the first verse. Then do the verse again, then a chorus, then a solo since you have eaten time with the intro.
> 
> I would go out with that intro riff too ...alone.
> 
> *edit - Great then.


I'm such a noob, to be honest I only know the parts written change but I can't tell the difference functionally between a verse and a chorus yet, the intro part I guess is the start so that's obvious thankfully 

I'd really appreciate if you could point them out with a time stamp if you or anybody else that has the time so that I can understand the process better, I have no clue what's going on as far as song structure, this is the very first riff I've come up with and I'm 45, a software dev by profession. 

Thanks for listening, and thank you for raising my awareness on this. It's given me a few pointers to start digging into. I's still very lost on this project but I shall keep trying


----------



## ibmorjamn

twangsta said:


> Thank you so much, you are absolutely right, when it enters with the crash is when it works, I was struggling with that given the little time I had. Your point is going to help me a lot tomorrow. Thanks again!
> 
> 
> I'm such a noob, to be honest I only know the parts written change but I can't tell the difference functionally between a verse and a chorus yet, the intro part I guess is the start so that's obvious thankfully
> 
> I'd really appreciate if you could point them out with a time stamp if you or anybody else that has the time so that I can understand the process better, I have no clue what's going on as far as song structure, this is the very first riff I've come up with and I'm 45, a software dev by profession.
> 
> Thanks for listening, and thank you for raising my awareness on this. It's given me a few pointers to start digging into. I's still very lost on this project but I shall keep trying


I very much like what you are doing I hear a little Rand and a little Alex Lifeson.The sections are sometimes but not always correlate with the vocal. I find mine by the drum track but I use ez drummer and the are pre arranged. intro is usually 8 bars , Verse is the vocal 8 bars pre chorus 4 bars and chorus 8 bars. So I have been doing intro, verse, chorus , bridge and then repeat the verse chorus. You can stick a solo in the bridge but it's up to you. Your tone and playing is very good ! Intro is kind of long , ends around 113. Cymbal I would say is where the verse starts and the riff gets heavier. I like the intro by the way.


----------



## Seventh Son

In my longtime pursuit of the tone on Maiden's Piece of Mind album, I recently noticed that the guitars on the album are much, much leaner, and, consequently, brighter/present, than anything I've ever recorded at home, even with the Bass knob set to zero. My recordings always have a lot of mud between 100 Hz and 250 Hz, regardless of mic placement or amp settings on my DSL20HR+MX112R. This low-end mud clashes with the bass and contributes a significantly to the perception of a scooped, fizzy tone. In the stock EQ plugin in GarageBand, my recorded tracks exhibit a downward slope from left to right, with a lot of content in the bass and low-mid region, less so in the mids, and about the same or less in the treble region, which tells me that there is something wrong, as the sound appears quite unbalanced. Consequently, I've noticed that carving out the 100–200 Hz section, using a deep medium cut of about 15dB in the stock EQ plugin, contributes a great deal toward getting more clarity in the mix.

My question is, is this normal when close-miking amps and something that is fixed in the mix using deep EQ cuts, or am I possibly dealing with bass build-up in the living room that is getting into the recordings? If this is normal, i.e., the large amount of bass is coming from the amp itself, then my guess is that in order to get the kind of lean, present guitar sound that I want, I would have to address it with something like a parametric EQ in the loop and cut all the muddy frequencies that way.


----------



## twangsta

ibmorjamn said:


> I very much like what you are doing I hear a little Rand and a little Alex Lifeson.The sections are sometimes but not always correlate with the vocal. I find mine by the drum track but I use ez drummer and the are pre arranged. intro is usually 8 bars , Verse is the vocal 8 bars pre chorus 4 bars and chorus 8 bars. So I have been doing intro, verse, chorus , bridge and then repeat the verse chorus. You can stick a solo in the bridge but it's up to you. Your tone and playing is very good ! Intro is kind of long , ends around 113. Cymbal I would say is where the verse starts and the riff gets heavier. I like the intro by the way.


That's an interesting idea, using the ez drummer pre arranged tracks, I shall revisit this track with that approach. Thank you very much for the kinds words. 

Sorry about the late reply, haven't been around much.


----------



## twangsta

Seventh Son said:


> In my longtime pursuit of the tone on Maiden's Piece of Mind album, I recently noticed that the guitars on the album are much, much leaner, and, consequently, brighter/present, than anything I've ever recorded at home, even with the Bass knob set to zero. My recordings always have a lot of mud between 100 Hz and 250 Hz, regardless of mic placement or amp settings on my DSL20HR+MX112R. This low-end mud clashes with the bass and contributes a significantly to the perception of a scooped, fizzy tone. In the stock EQ plugin in GarageBand, my recorded tracks exhibit a downward slope from left to right, with a lot of content in the bass and low-mid region, less so in the mids, and about the same or less in the treble region, which tells me that there is something wrong, as the sound appears quite unbalanced. Consequently, I've noticed that carving out the 100–200 Hz section, using a deep medium cut of about 15dB in the stock EQ plugin, contributes a great deal toward getting more clarity in the mix.
> 
> My question is, is this normal when close-miking amps and something that is fixed in the mix using deep EQ cuts, or am I possibly dealing with bass build-up in the living room that is getting into the recordings? If this is normal, i.e., the large amount of bass is coming from the amp itself, then my guess is that in order to get the kind of lean, present guitar sound that I want, I would have to address it with something like a parametric EQ in the loop and cut all the muddy frequencies that way.



My cab has G12-T75 speakers, and I use an SM57. I place the mic closer to the edge of the cone perpendicular to the baffle. Using less gain can help, but the whole tone chain needs to be working together to get the best results you can muster up. I'm a noob to be honest, I find it easier if the source sounds good, the rest gets easier. Keep experimenting, what's your tone chain like, guitar, pickups, pedals, cab speaker, etc. Bass is the enemy of high gain, need to tame it, I find I sometimes use the DD YJM 308 as an eq as it's bass cut is superb end of your pedal chain, I just roll the gain completely off and keep the volume at unity if I don't want any boost from it.


----------



## Seventh Son

I was wondering, how much distortion do you guys hear in these isolated tracks (note that the left guitar is on the left channel, and the right guitar on the right channel)? What do you hear in terms of bass, middle, treble? How would you describe what you are hearing?


----------



## RCM 800

Seventh Son said:


> I was wondering, how much distortion do you guys hear in these isolated tracks (note that the left guitar is on the left channel, and the right guitar on the right channel)? What do you hear in terms of bass, middle, treble? How would you describe what you are hearing?



to me it sounds like the amps are running wide open or close to it. Probably a little bass cut but still has lows.


----------

