(Log in to disable ads.)

  • Recording

  • The distorted guitar sounds fine live, but RECORDED.....

Tragically, I've just been re-called to go back into studio to COMPLETELY redo all the guitar tracks I did for my band's EP three weeks ago (I have to face recording "Giant Steps" again ☹ ), after the producer has told me they sounded "thin, undynamic and have no balls" ?

Now, I find this hard to understand, given the raw sound I get with my toys, and was wondering if anyone has any tips or superior insight, before I go back to face the guy and have the guts to make eye contact ? ?

My rig is as follows, in chain order:

humbucking guitar
polytune
Radial Tonebone Classic overdrive (FRESHLY re-valved)
Voodoo Lab Sparkle Drive
TC flashback Delay
freshly re-valved '74 Marshall superlead 100w
4x12 Orange cab loaded with celestion Gold & G12-65 speakers

All cables and patch cables are very good quality and the pedals are powered with a Voodoo Lab Pedal power 2 (I think its called?...)

the amp was mic'd with two 57's, one half-way between centre and edge of a Gold's cone, and the other about 4 feet in front of the cab.

Live, the rig sounds HUGE (especially when cranked ? ) and I run it with very little treble and quite bassy. I'm fortunate to play in bands where I don't have other guitars and keyboards to compete with, so am at liberty to do so! And with all of that said, I find it quite dazzling that he got a thin lifeless sound?!?!

After experimentation (or fiddling ? ), I found that running the heavier-driven Tonebone into the lighter Sparkle Drive gave a GORGEOUS smooth sound very appropriate for my band's style (jazz-rock), and this is the only possible problem I could possibly see which might have caused the poor recording...

Either way, I'm stumped because this is the kind of stuff I PURPOSELY try to avoid, and I'd have nightmares if my collection of toys surmounts to nought and I have to record with Guitar Rig....

Help!!!! ?

thanks in advance
    doesn't sound like the rig is at fault here... maybe he is just trying to get you to plugin direct into guitar rig so that he can mix you differently to how you would like? (not always a bad experiment, but why buy all that gear to record direct?) of course he may have just mic'd you up badly, or phasing between the 2 mic's maybe cancelled out your bottoms? or someone got overzealous on "making room for the bass" with their Highpass filter.

    I hope you can just keep a straight face and plug yer stuff in at the same settings, drag him into the room and then ask, "so does this sound thin?" followed closely by, "Please fix whatever your error was"

    usually a rig like that is mixed too dark and fat and needs to be thinned out, I'm confused :-\
      ryanguit (Ryan Lucas) wrote:
      usually a rig like that is mixed too dark and fat and needs to be thinned out, I'm confused :-\
      Yeah man my thoughts exactly.... If I was cranking the Marshall into the Van Halen-pure-Marshall-drive stratosphere, I'd expect a slightly fizzy top end AT MOST, but I'm running it differently to that, and am also surprised that it didn't need thinning out, if anything....

      Perhaps, maybe the 57's couldn't handle the bottom end and were sending a compressed signal?...

      Also, if the more ambient 57's tracks were removed, would the remaining close-mic'd tracks still have phasing issues?... Am a bit of a dummy in this regard ?

      thanks for your words!
        Try using less distortion, and less pre-amp gain, and a little more volume. High gain that sounds powerful and crunchy at loud volume sounds fizzy and thin when played back at "regular" volumes on a recording.

        Might be counter-intuitive, but to get that "huge" guitar sound on recordings you often want to go for less gain at the recording stage.

        Also, the more distorted and saturated your gain settings, the less dynamic the whole thing will be.
          Warren wrote: Try using less distortion, and less pre-amp gain, and a little more volume. High gain that sounds powerful and crunchy at loud volume sounds fizzy and thin when played back at "regular" volumes on a recording.

          Might be counter-intuitive, but to get that "huge" guitar sound on recordings you often want to go for less gain at the recording stage.
          +1. Dial back on the gain, avoid any radical EQ settings (especially in the all-important midrange) and track the guitar more than once to create a fatter, heavier sound (you don't have to use the extra tracks, but it's nice to have them at mixdown to give you more options).

          Mic phase shouldn't be an issue these days - the engineer can flip the phase of any mic at any stage. He can also time-align the mic tracks (dragging them so the short delay between them disappears. Well... as long as he has recorded each mic onto a separate track... Engineers are human too and occasionally make mistakes.

          Personally, I do prefer an LDC mic for the ambient mic to capture a more natural representation of the sound, but that's more a taste thing.
            I agree with what Warren said.

            Also, when a guitarist goes into a 'strange' studio chances are he doesn't know the ability of the studio or engineer in that studio...so the guitarist shouldn't arrive and setup his own tone the way he usually sets it up live.
            It's the engineers job (hopefully he has the ability) to setup the tone he knows will work in the studio.

            Here's Peter Hanmers TSL 602 clean channel with a Marshall Drivemaster in front, one SM57, and a Les Paul, double tracked.

            http://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=3607719
              Cool thanks for the tips!

              To be perfectly honest though, I wouldn't say I'm using ALL that much gain, and the sound I get is in the classic zeppelin/purple acceptable plexi range. I will however, gain down more when I go back and hope for better results!!

              How do guys manage to run maxed-out fuzz faces into already-driven marshalls and get such glorious sounds...? AND add delay and speaker distortion into the mix...

              As an aside, I was surprised at the amount of noise and gain Guthrie Govan used on his recent clinic tour, AND how high-gain the Cornford MK50II is after seeing youtube demos, despite its more fusion-inclined famous-user list. (guthrie, greg howe, richie kotzen (on occasion), dave kilminster etc) :/
                Sebastian wrote: Cool thanks for the tips!

                To be perfectly honest though, I wouldn't say I'm using ALL that much gain, and the sound I get is in the classic zeppelin/purple acceptable plexi range. I will however, gain down more when I go back and hope for better results!!

                How do guys manage to run maxed-out fuzz faces into already-driven marshalls and get such glorious sounds...? AND add delay and speaker distortion into the mix...

                As an aside, I was surprised at the amount of noise and gain Guthrie Govan used on his recent clinic tour, AND how high-gain the Cornford MK50II is after seeing youtube demos, despite its more fusion-inclined famous-user list. (guthrie, greg howe, richie kotzen (on occasion), dave kilminster etc) :/
                Listen carefully to "Smoke on the Water". A lot of the "thickness" in the riff comes from Jon Lord's Hammond which doubles the riff, and that's not immediately apparent when you're just listening casually. Also, "Whole Lotta Love" also sees the main riff doubled by the bass. In both of those songs you can hear the initial riff with just the guitar, and then with the added stuff after the first few bars. Makes a big difference. Point I'm trying to make is that "big" guitar sounds are quite often not just the guitar, or at least just one guitar. There is all manner of studio trickery that goes into creating those "massive" riffs etc.

                I believe that heavily saturated guitar tones are among the most difficult things to get right in a mix (partly because they tromp all over the other stuff), so the type of thing you're talking about is not simply achieved by cranking all your effects and your amp to max and pressing "record". To be honest, if you're working with an experienced engineer they should be able to guide you around this stuff, but if not your only option is some trial and error.

                When it comes to delay, reverb etc. you'll often find that in the studio, these things are carefully added to a much drier signal. Too much delay and reverb at the recording phase will make it difficult to mix the guitar in with the rest of the stuff later on, since you create fewer options by adding all of that up-front. Live tone is a different story. Often what sounds awesome live makes for a shitty recording.

                Fusion guitarists actually use quite a lot of gain, IMO. Guthrie likes to use his guitar's volume (and, I suspect, alters his technique) to "clean up" the tone for lower-gain bits. Most of the Richie Kotzen stuff I've heard is also pretty high gain.
                  Warren wrote:
                  I believe that heavily saturated guitar tones are among the most difficult things to get right in a mix (partly because they tromp all over the other stuff), so the type of thing you're talking about is not simply achieved by cranking all your effects and your amp to max and pressing "record".
                  Ok, I'm not cranking everything. Let me put that in black and white. Both the tubescreamer-type pedal and the tube drive had their gains set to 12 o'clock. the amp is LOUD (and clean) but not heavily saturated for the most part. Besides, its a jazz fusion recording, and high gain wouldn't be first choice for blending in with a sax over complex harmonies....
                  Warren wrote:
                  Live tone is a different story. Often what sounds awesome live makes for a shitty recording.
                  How do they get live recordings to sound good then?
                    Sebastian wrote:

                    Ok, I'm not cranking everything. Let me put that in black and white. Both the tubescreamer-type pedal and the tube drive had their gains set to 12 o'clock. the amp is LOUD (and clean) but not heavily saturated for the most part. Besides, its a jazz fusion recording, and high gain wouldn't be first choice for blending in with a sax over complex harmonies....
                    I hear you. Sorry, I wasn't trying to sound like you had everything absolutely cranked. Just talking generally.

                    How do they get live recordings to sound good then?
                    They cheat.

                    The best live recordings often have outputs running directly to track (apart from what goes through the PA) and it can all be properly mixed later (including parts of the actual live sound, of course). The engineers can re-layer the stuff as they see fit, add effects to taste etc. so that they can recapture that "live" tone at living room levels.

                    For some kinds of bands you can simply record the ban playing live and get good results, but I'd hazard a guess that with most contemporary concert recordings it's understood before-hand that the music is going to be used for a "live" album or DVD, and so everything is set up not only to create a good live sound for concert-goers, but also to capture all the sound for further processing later.
                      I can't offer any advice, but surely the producer should be able to tell you what he thinks you need to change? Either he's used to working with similar guitar tones to yours and he should be able to tell you what's wrong, or he isn't used to working with tones like yours and there's a good chance he just doesn't know how to use your tone - in which case rerecording won't fix anything?

                      Maybe I'm completely out of line, but I know nothing about how the musician/producer relationship works, and I'm curious!
                        I know alot of people are talking about less gain, I'd like to mention another thing that IMO should be a golden rule...More Mids...Seriously they must always be 12 o clock or higher in my mind, especially for rhythm sounds. ?
                          Was the producer at the original recording session?
                          Has the engineer done something to the tracks post recording and now lost the original tracks?
                          Did the engineer compress the hell out of the signal when laying the track down and now does not have a "cold" track?
                          Are you/your band going to have to pay for the extra studio time? If so, I reckon you need to get answers to the above questions.
                            I agree with Pete 100%.
                            If he was there the 1st time round, was he not aware of how the frequencies weren't going to work then?
                            gain, mids, yes yes good answers, BUT his job is getting the tone to tape, not yours. your job is to play yer parts. And if that means that you have to go through guitar rig because he can't capture your sound. fine. but next time record direct so if there are any problems with your mixing you just reamp/reguitarrig the parts and you don't have to replay everything.

                            (i dont like guitar rig... but its better than the result you may get with an inexperienced engineer/producer AND can sound amazing with a guy who knows how to listen properly)
                              That was my first question when I read the OP. Where was the producer the first time and was he listening? Why didn't he pick up on these problems then?

                              And then some other things crossed my mind.

                              You've got a good setup and have made some decent gear choices so there's no doubt that a good or even great sound is possible to extract. However in studio I firmly believe that "less is more" and purity of tone is most often achieved when the signal path is as clean as possible. Maybe try only using a guitar->cable->amp setup for the stuff that doesn't need effects/pedal overdrive, etc, and only insert the pedals for the parts that need it. Of course, if you need high gain, then use it. There's no rule that lower gain produces better tone. It all depends on the song, right? But if you think backing off the gain will help the song, then do that. Actually, the producer should be there to help you make these decisions and if he can't do it on the day, he's not a real producer. I dare anyone to tell Fear Factory or Children of Bodom to back off on the gain in studio.

                              Also, two mike setups seem simple but they can become a can of worms and often introduce phasing and comb-filtering effects that usually aren't desirable. I understand where he's coming from with one 57 on-axis and one off-axis (a mixture of bright and meaty tone, etc), but when I hear that sort of approach, I think "cookie cutter engineering" or begin to feel like it's something he read out of a book. Every situation is different and requires a different approach to achieve best results. Ask him to humour you and only use one mike and take a listen. I am willing to bet you will get better results faster. It is far more effective to have multiple mikes to try in single mike setups for different tonal flavours than combine two of the same.

                              Just my 2c.

                              Cheers ?



                                PeteM wrote: Was the producer at the original recording session?
                                Has the engineer done something to the tracks post recording and now lost the original tracks?
                                Did the engineer compress the hell out of the signal when laying the track down and now does not have a "cold" track?
                                Are you/your band going to have to pay for the extra studio time? If so, I reckon you need to get answers to the above questions.
                                Yes, he was at the original session, he placed the mics and pushed the record button.

                                I don't think the original tracks are tampered with, and his decision to re-record was made in the mixing phase, as we both thought the demo takes I did before recording sounded great. Perhaps the amp just doesn't sit with the mix?

                                Thank the pope, NO we won't be charged extra ?

                                At least this has given me time to practice my parts and so I can nail them, as opposed to get them right, this time around!

                                Great post Mo Facta, will definitely try two different mikes, thanks!
                                  Cool, glad it was helpful.

                                  I just want to clarify that I meant to audition different mics in SINGLE mic setups, not two different mics in double mic setup. Although, if you're going to use two mics, I would recommend using two different mics as you can use them to compliment one another, tonally.

                                  Cheers ?
                                    Its your responsibility to play the tracks to the best of your ability, in time right notes etc. Its the engineer and by extension the producer's job to get the sound right. For him to blame you and you're equipment would be down right unprofessional of him imho. I'd redo the track for the sake of getting the best album you could, but then be a fussy customer and make sure you are satisfied before leaving the session. I'm always weary of guys who do multi mic recording, esspecially for heavier stuff, unless the 'room sound' is just right, and you'll have phasing, causing 'thin sounding' guitars.
                                      Mo Facta wrote: Cool, glad it was helpful.

                                      I just want to clarify that I meant to audition different mics in SINGLE mic setups, not two different mics in double mic setup. Although, if you're going to use two mics, I would recommend using two different mics as you can use them to compliment one another, tonally.

                                      Cheers ?
                                      Yep, totally understood ?

                                      I do have two different types of speaker in my cab, so should be really interesting and hopefully the different tonal colours will come into great use!!

                                      Now forgive my ignorance with the seemingly obvious point raised numerous times on the phasing issue, but isn't that solved by as simply as inverting the phase of one of the mics if such an event were to occur?

                                      And Averatu, I think it should be cleared that neither I nor my equipment was BLAMED for the sound that came out of that session. I think that would be unfair on the producer!!! But yes, a fussy customer I definitely shall be!! ?
                                        Sebastian wrote: I do have two different types of speaker in my cab,
                                        Wait a sec, maybe this is part of the problem? With two different speakers your room sound will be quite different to a mic'd up sound (that is, even more than usual), regardless of where the mic was placed? Maybe the sound guy was unaware of the two speakers being different?