Recording rock guitar chain

chrispick · Post by **chrispick** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:12 pm

BradLyons wrote:The sound of the room today no longer applies with plugins such as Waves IR1, Digidesign Revibe, TL Space, and Altiverb. These plugins re-create the room environment. I actually record in a dead room and simulate the room later with wonderful results, I prefer it that way. BUT the key here is ONLY with high-end reverbs, anything less....well it isn't as convincing

Yeah, I'll likely record dry and mono because this track will be played in a stadium enviroment -- which comes replete with its own "room sound," to put it euphemistically (and is unfriendly to conventional stereo mixes).

And, should I want to add just a taste of room ambience, I have Altiverb to do it.

markwayne · Post by **markwayne** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:18 am

While it is possible to add ambience with reverb, I should clarify that that's not why I would suggest using room mics.

Large, loud amps will acoustically couple with the room they are in and use the space/air as part of signal chain. By letting, say, a Marshall 4/12 box breathe in a big, nice - sounding room, you are getting all four speakers, the wood of the cabinet, the complex reflections, and all the subtle phase issues that go along with all of these elements.

Now I'm talking about recording a great player who has spent years playing through a great, tube amp here. These players consider their amp as integral to their tone as their guitar. Maybe more important than the guitar in some cases. If you are recording someone used to using a Pod, let's say, the results won't be worth the effort and may, in fact, be worse than running direct.

I should also state that while I respect Brad's opinions, I was not happy with the liquid channel. I tried to like it. I really did. However, I kept coming back to my old standbys. There was somthing in the mids that seemed to be present in every preset I tried. To be fair I tend to hear this in most gear that uses D/A and A/D converters. I'm not a fan of modeling amps as you can imagine.

I generally choose an API (or some related flavor) for the close mic(s) and a Neve (or some related flavor) for the room mic, and another Neve for the red box feed. Transformers are the key for me. Iron for the room and direct feed, and a touch more steel for the close mics.

just my opinions of course,
Wayne

chrispick · Post by **chrispick** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 2:33 pm

markwayne wrote:While it is possible to add ambience with reverb, I should clarify that that's not why I would suggest using room mics.

Large, loud amps will acoustically couple with the room they are in and use the space/air as part of signal chain. By letting, say, a Marshall 4/12 box breathe in a big, nice - sounding room, you are getting all four speakers, the wood of the cabinet, the complex reflections, and all the subtle phase issues that go along with all of these elements.

Now I'm talking about recording a great player who has spent years playing through a great, tube amp here. These players consider their amp as integral to their tone as their guitar. Maybe more important than the guitar in some cases. If you are recording someone used to using a Pod, let's say, the results won't be worth the effort and may, in fact, be worse than running direct.

I should also state that while I respect Brad's opinions, I was not happy with the liquid channel. I tried to like it. I really did. However, I kept coming back to my old standbys. There was somthing in the mids that seemed to be present in every preset I tried. To be fair I tend to hear this in most gear that uses D/A and A/D converters. I'm not a fan of modeling amps as you can imagine.

I generally choose an API (or some related flavor) for the close mic(s) and a Neve (or some related flavor) for the room mic, and another Neve for the red box feed. Transformers are the key for me. Iron for the room and direct feed, and a touch more steel for the close mics.

just my opinions of course,
Wayne

I appreciate your opinons, markwayne. I like to take in diverse viewpoints. Part of what makes any artistic endeavor cool.

I'm a guitar player, so I'm sensitive to guitar/amp chain sounds. But, first and foremost, I'm a composer, so I try not to be too rigid and dogmatic about it. Different songs require different sounds. I've used tube, solid state and modeling amps. I expect different results from each.

Like you though, I have my problems with modeling amps (although I use them all the time when sketching musical ideas). That said, a Fender cyber series amp with a H&K Tube Factor front-end can be a great compromise between tube tone and modeling versatility. Works for me anyway. Supposedly, Fender use some funk-ass, proprietary emulation technique, FWIW.

And I dig what you're saying about amp tone in a room. Takes a nice room though, and I'm not sure I'll have access to one. My bet is I'll close mic all the way. But, I like to have option plans.

BradLyons · Post by **BradLyons** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 5:14 pm

The LC isn't for everyone

While I do LOVE the LC, there are other pres that are top-notch that I personally don't like that others do...so it's like ice-cream really.

YouTube · Post by **James Steele** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 7:51 pm

Hmmm... well call me "un-meticulous" if you want, but I've gotten good results just close micing my cabinet with my AKG 414-B ULS using the pre-amps in my Mackie 8-bus board. Yeah... I know... heresy. Still it doesn't sound bad. Check out http://www.jamessteele.com/music.html and listen to the guitar solo in the song "Absolution". That's 414 into Mackie pre and I just FTP'd the file to Jim Watson who dropped it into his project and mixed. The project was recorded in 24 bit, so there was plenty of information available for Jim to apply plugs if needed, but it's good enough for me. (We're going to re-mix though... the solo is a little too up in the mix.)

Personally, as much as I'm all for spending dough on high-end gear, I believe that some instruments like electric guitar (as opposed to vocals or acoustic instruments) give you much more leeway in terms of using mid-range mics and pres. I found in my case that I felt so much more comfortable tracking in my home studio, that any slight hit in quality I took by recording there I made up for by delivering a much better performance. With that in mind, Jim's coming down and helping me set up a vocal tracking chain (using one of his pres and mics) that I'm going to set up in my home and NOT TOUCH until the project is done. I'm just that much more comfortable working in my own studio.

markwayne · Post by **markwayne** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:09 am

I didn't mean to diss anyone's method. And I stress that the extra time and expense is only justified when you have a great sounding room. I'd be lying if I said that I always go to that extreme. Hell, I do a fair amount of direct to board stuff if the kids are asleep upstairs.

I tend to do a lot of work at home as well for cartage issues more than anything else. For most work, I just throw a mic on a small cabinet loaded with a single 12" I pulled out of an old PA cab years ago and it sounds just fine.

That being said, there is a difference, at least to my ears, when I crank a vintage 4/12 box until the wood knocks and the room starts ringing. The guitar just sounds bigger, louder and more dangerous (for want of a better word) to me.

Hey James, I have an 8-bus as well. Not heresy. Plenty of great tracks have been cut with an 8-bus. However, if you get a chance, esp. with a 414, I think you would really like what a big output transformer does for the low end and upper mids all without any EQ. BTW-I checked out the tunes and I thought your tone on "The Way It's Going Down" is the standout. Great job.

Brad, I agree completely. Mic pres and studio monitors are very personal choices. I can only attest to my experience with the LC.

it's all rock and roll,
Wayne

YouTube · Post by **James Steele** » Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:14 pm

markwayne wrote:However, if you get a chance, esp. with a 414, I think you would really like what a big output transformer does for the low end and upper mids all without any EQ. BTW-I checked out the tunes and I thought your tone on "The Way It's Going Down" is the standout. Great job.

Thanks. That's a Les Paul with Duncan Alnico II Pro pickup in bridge, into a modded 79 Marshall 100-watt MkII Master Lead, into a 4x12 cab with Vintage 30s. Jim Watson would know what mic and pre he used. The Les Paul sounds chunky for rhythm, although I've recently replaced the pickups in my Dean V (the one in my avatar pic) with Alnico II Pros and I going to see what kind of rhythm tone I get with it.

I guess part of my point was that sometimes there are diminishing returns and what matters most is the performance.

That said, when Jim comes down to help me set up the vocal, he's bringing a two channel outboard pre... I think it's Neve pres... and I may use the other channel for my guitar recording chain.

chrispick · Post by **chrispick** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 12:44 pm

Add-on questions:

When you guys are tracking guitars, are you using compressors to color the sound or just tame peak levels? Or both?

Could it not be beneficial to add compressor color after tracking via UAD-1 or like?

Isn't there some compression already occurring at the condenser mic chain-point?

Does distortion rock guitar even need additional compression?

YouTube · Post by **James Steele** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 12:07 pm

chrispick wrote:Add-on questions:

When you guys are tracking guitars, are you using compressors to color the sound or just tame peak levels? Or both?

Could it not be beneficial to add compressor color after tracking via UAD-1 or like?

Isn't there some compression already occurring at the condenser mic chain-point?

Does distortion rock guitar even need additional compression?

Hmmm... nobody added anything to this and I was waiting for a more experienced person to step up and say something. Lacking that, I guess I'll just say that in my *limited* experience, I'd say that in 24-bit projects I probably wouldn't do any compressing during tracking. And after tracking, I don't know... Jim might have done some on my rhythm tracks and I'll have to ask him. In my own home studio forays, I've only applied it on rhythm guitar stuff that was just big sustaining power chords where I wanted them to be nice and smooth.

BradLyons · Post by **BradLyons** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 1:41 pm

Well, I guess I qualify as a more experienced person so I'll chime in

There are many ways to track and record, likewise many tools to use. It really comes down to how you want it to sound. There are some compressors that are about clean compression, basically compression without sounding compressed such as the Dynamic Range Controllers from GML, but there are others that are about squashing the heck out of the sound such as a Universal Audio 1176, and depending how you use it can sound quite different. Personally when recording heavy guitar, I do like to run some heavy compression on the front-end (I use the Liquid Channels for mine...just added a third unit, sweeet), but when mixing I'm using the Universal Audio plugin LA-2A as a limiter. Compressing with plugins are perfectly fine, but it's always best to do this in actual hardware on the front-end too. GOOD software is fine for mixing, but again doing this in analog does have something special to it.

Here are some microphones to consider:

Royer R121/R122- ribbon microphone that captures the sound of the amplifier, very open and dynamic range giving you the actual tone that you're hearing

Soundelux U195- This is a FET (Field Effect Transistor) that gives you a tube-like sound, but with a little more edge. This works great on guitar cabs giving you a little more in your face sound.

Shure SM57/Audix I5, Sennheiser MD421- These are Dynamic mics that are often used, they also work well when combined with a ribbon to give you that mid-range grit.

Mojave Audio MA200- This is a brand new tube mic that is ABSOLUTELY AWESOME!!!

Your choice of pre should fit your microphone, or vice versa. For example, a tube mic with a tube pre isn't always ideal. This is why I like the Focusrite ISA220 so much.... for the money, it sounds analog but is not overly coloring of signal. The EQ is GORGEOUS with a very good VCA compressor (and a De-Esser), combine a tube mic with this and you get that tube-warmth sound.....but use a Royer and you're getting a more neutral sound that isn't sterile.

A popular compressor for tracking is the Universal Audio 1176 for the reasons I said above, but also an Emperical Labs Distressor...just very much in your face! There are many options in software for EQ and Compression later, but as I stated...the more you can do on the front-end, the better off you are.

Hope this helps!

chrispick · Post by **chrispick** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 9:14 pm

Thanks for your additional input Brad and James. My need for these tools is no longer as urgent -- my job got scaled down a bunch -- but I still need to step up this part of my recording arsenal in time. You've certainly given me a lot to mull over.

markwayne · Post by **markwayne** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 10:11 am

Sorry for the delay. I've been taking a vacation from the internet to tackle some projects.

Recording chains, as this thread has proven, tend to be personal and more than a little subjective.

As for compression during tracking I can only say that I steer clear of it on guitar amps. A tube guitar amp by its very nature is already compressing the guitar signal. And even if there is a need, I would still rather add compression at mixdown unless the guitarist just can't get his/her levels together enough to get a good take without overs. When micing up a loud amp our ears are rarely at their best to make critical decisions about compression ratios and thresholds. I hate to be stuck with too much compresson or pumping or other artifacts printed to tape/hard disk.

The only time I use compression during tracking is to tame transients that the talent is unable to control through their technique. Inexperienced vocalists and bass players fed direct to console spring to mind as perfect cantidates for compression on the way in rather than out.

Of course, none of this takes into account using over-compression itself as part of the (typically direct) guitar sound. Lot's of examples of this in old-school R&B and 80's rock.

just my thoughts,
Wayne

Jim · Post by **Jim** » Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:40 am

I don't have nearly the experience some of you guys do, but seems to me you're killing yourselves by not using a POD or the Yamaha or other counterparts. I've recorded guitars both ways, and miking a cabinet is a time-draining pain, and results in some gtr/amp combos are shrill beyond human endurance, whereas the results of the amp simulators are smooth and pleasing, even with shredders. And not picking up drum set bleed in the guitar track, and even more heinous, guitar bleed in the drum tracks, make them a slam dunk.

Not to mention the incredible variety of tones, the ease of setup, the fact that the vast majority of listeners can't tell the difference...

Just put me down as one of the minority who prefer recording direct.

markwayne · Post by **markwayne** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:03 am

Oh I record plenty of guitars direct as well. I own and use a POD as well as various SansAmp products a Roland GP-100, Marshall JMP-1, etc. etc.. There is nothing wrong with going this route. I always tell clients that it will save them time (which they hear as money) and usually provide good results.

However, there are some groups (esp. heavy, or '70's-style, guitar-oriented rock) where a certain amp and guitar combination is so central to the group sound, that it would be irresponsible of me to try and talk them out of using their equipment. I've recorded plenty of player's whose tone did not appeal to me at all. However, after trying to "fix it", I have had to admit that that "horrible" tone was a huge part of the band's sound.

If guitars are the only instruments on a track, I always argue for mixing direct tracks with moving some air. Stacks of direct guitar tend to sound small. Sometimes, just adding one live take can make the guitar sound huge.

There is a time and a place for all techniques, and I've been around long enough to see most of them.

keep on rockin' in the free world,
Wayne

BradLyons · Post by **BradLyons** » Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:33 am

Jim,

While products like the POD are fine, there is nothing like the sound of miking a REAL amplifier. The way the tone reacts to the playing, the way the air flows over the microphone... the sound of the pres you run it through. There is nothing like it, otherwise I wouldn't waste the time I do and spent the money I've spent on such a simple task. Yes, there is a time and place for recording direct--it's easy to do, it's quick, it sounds good. BUT it doesn't replace the real thing.