How in the hell do the pro's get such a larger than life sound with everything?

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Oddly enough, I went with a Rode NTK & Apogee pres in order to get a "massive" sounding guitar. It's weird... but in the room and situation, it was what we both picked. I just didn't like the tone of the SM-57 mic. If you can get things sounding great without an EQ, do it.

 

 

I don't think that's a very weird combination at all, especially in light of the subject topic.

 

As we've mentioned above, a good combination might be your 57 up close, with the NTK farther away from the cabinet. At any rate, I frequently use an LDC to get a large guitar sound.

 

And yeah, I like to try and choose the mic, the positioning, etc. to get the sound without requiring EQ. If I use EQ later, it's for aesthetic mixing purposes, not for "fixing".

[mattIsA_lamma]

 

And you have got to use EQ to make each instrument have its own "space" in the frequency range, and compression to make each instrument stand out more. If you don't know anything about compression, definitely read up on it, because you can overuse it easily to the point that it actually hurts the sound. EQ'ing is important because you can use it to prevent instruments from interfering with each other, and to emphasize what you consider is the most pleasing part of the sound of the instrument.

 

 

I am really interested in this. Do you have any links/recommendations on reading material?

Also, when recording a band with 2 guitars, is it bad for both guitarists to use the same rig and settings when recording?

[DontLetMeDrown]

 

I am really interested in this. Do you have any links/recommendations on reading material? Also, when recording a band with 2 guitars, is it bad for both guitarists to use the same rig and settings when recording?

 

 

Every situation is different. You might have less "texture" in your mix if both guitarsts use the same rig. Depending on the song, it might just work. You really never know until you try, but generally, I like to use at least two different amps. Here is my favorite reading material about getting good guitar tones, mixing, etc.: http://www.badmuckingfastard.com/sound/slipperman.html

[UstadKhanAli]

 

I am really interested in this. Do you have any links/recommendations on reading material? Also, when recording a band with 2 guitars, is it bad for both guitarists to use the same rig and settings when recording?

 

 

The best book I've read on this is unfortunately out of print. It's Wayne Wadhams "Sound Advice: A Musician's Guide to the Recording Studio", which I highly recommend no matter what your level of expertise. This covers the frequencies of instruments, micing them, etc. really well, and approaches recording from a very creative point of view, often offering viewpoints that contradict his own.

 

The answer to the second question is: it depends.

 

Often, if you're trying to achieve two more distinct sounds, using (at the very least) different guitars helps differentiate the parts more. I frequently use different guitars, different amps, and/or different mic/mic positioning. Obviously, using different settings on amps helps too. But it all depends. Sometimes you can get away with using more or less the same setup, but changing the pick-ups and moving the mic around a little bit if you still want sounds that are distinct from each other.

[devinb]

The Wadhams book is available on Amazon (third party) for $0.44. Shipping is a flat $2.99, I believe.

[Dean Roddey]

In the last tune I just did, I got really nice results by having doubled electric guitar parts (hard l/r) and doubled accoustic guitar parts (also hard l/r) playing the same part. So it was really a quadruple part but, because the textures of the electric and accoustic are so different, it came out quite thick, and for the most part those were the only parts out to the side so they had to carry all the width of the song. There were cymbals out there sometimes.

 

And the split harmonizer trick. Definitely a way to get much thicker sounding mixes with fewer tracks. I use it fairly liberally, but only on certain tracks where it's really important. And as long as it's not overdone, you really don't notice it's there much unless you turn it off, then you really hear what it's contributing.

 

And a nice rich, cohesive sense of space as well. I've kind of gone through a phase I guess where I used no reverb at first, then some then too much now back to some. I and don't mean too high level but too many individual reverbs. So I'd have one snare plate, one vocal plate, one drum plate, a short plate and long plate, or something like that. On the last one it was down to short, long and drum. And it sounded more coherent and thicker, with way less CPU overhead. And I could use more without it getting messy because there was fewer of them.

 

And delay definitely can add space. Use it on the vocals or snare, to give a sense of those instruments bouncing off the walls of a large space.

[UstadKhanAli]

Here's the Wayne Wadhams book on Amazon. The single best book for recording I've run across so far, especially where creative/artistic approaches and micing instruments are concerned. If you want a DAW book, look elsewhere.

[petejt]

 

One more thing, a subtle chorus (added after the fact, for example) often gives a guitar track enough extra space to make it sound bigger.

 

 

hmmmmmmmmm.......

[devinb]

I personally would be skeptical of anything that seems a little over the top. But I'm a traditionalist, and fear that my recordings will sound dated in a decade.

[nerol1st]

 

hmmmmmmmmm.......

 

 

Yeah I agree, not a fan of chorus in any way.

[Dean Roddey]

 

I personally would be skeptical of anything that seems a little over the top. But I'm a traditionalist, and fear that my recordings will sound dated in a decade.

 

 

I guess one benefit of the modern scheme of a fully slammed flat line is that you can be sure that no one is ever going to out-slam you in the future, unless the scale starts going to 1 I guess.

[UstadKhanAli]

I personally would be skeptical of anything that seems a little over the top. But I'm a traditionalist, and fear that my recordings will sound dated in a decade.

 

You might want to not do excessive gain optimization or do obviously looped pop music then!!

[devinb]

You might want to not do excessive gain optimization or do obviously looped pop music then!!

 

I think I'm safe on both those counts.

[UstadKhanAli]

Okay, how about Auto Tune set to "stun"? That's another telltale sound of the New Millenium that's gonna sound really bad and dated in ten years.

 

Right now, it merely sounds really bad!

[Deeprig9]

I'm a loser who believes you should start with the biggest, fattest, best tone possible from your pick, strings, pedals, amp, speaker first, if that's what tone you are looking for. Once you have that, and it sounds like you do, there should be no problem capturing that essense on a 57 and a condensor, as stated ad nauseum. A little bit of treatment and a decent mix, and like you said, professional mastering, there's no reason the guitar won't be "big". Metal guitar sound seems like it would be the easiest to nail in a studio with the right amp, guitar, and player, so I'm a little confused, you seem like a well-read professional minded guy. It's not like you need a 1965 Falcon and a Gretch with the mics at the right place in the room and the tubes heated up to exactly 177 degrees F with the guitarist facing east for just the right amount of 60 cycle crackle in the perfectly dirty pots on a waning crescent moon and a room temperature of 65 degrees and relative humidity at 70%, like my guitar tone.

[Todzilla]

How come no one has mentioned "Re-amping?"

[Deeprig9]

 

How come no one has mentioned "Re-amping?"

 

 

Is that like what Pink Floyd's engineer did for the Another Brick II solo? Gil recorded direct from his strat onto the tape, and later the engineer played that signal through different amp setups and mic'd it for that magic tone that has sold millions of guitars and pickups over the decades?

[Todzilla]

 

Is that like what Pink Floyd's engineer did for the Another Brick II solo? Gil recorded direct from his strat onto the tape, and later the engineer played that signal through different amp setups and mic'd it for that magic tone that has sold millions of guitars and pickups over the decades?

 

 

 

Yeah, that's the basic idea. A Reamp setup is like a DI box in reverse. It takes a clean direct guitar signal from a DAW and converts the impedance back to that of a guitar output. That signal can then be fed into a sequence of different amplifiers, each recorded with a different tone, but from the identical guitar performance. You can build huge thick guitar tones, without the slopiness of multiple passes of not-so-identical performances.

[devinb]

 

Yeah, that's the basic idea. A Reamp setup is like a DI box in reverse. It takes a clean direct guitar signal from a DAW and converts the impedance back to that of a guitar output. That signal can then be fed into a sequence of different amplifiers, each recorded with a different tone, but from the identical guitar performance. You can build huge thick guitar tones, without the slopiness of multiple passes of not-so-identical performances.

 

 

Within reason, it makes sense to me...think how many boutique amps are shipped these days with two different speakers...

[newlyformedmind]

 

I'm a loser who believes you should start with the biggest, fattest, best tone possible from your pick, strings, pedals, amp, speaker first, if that's what tone you are looking for. Once you have that, and it sounds like you do, there should be no problem capturing that essense on a 57 and a condensor, as stated ad nauseum. A little bit of treatment and a decent mix, and like you said, professional mastering, there's no reason the guitar won't be "big". Metal guitar sound seems like it would be the easiest to nail in a studio with the right amp, guitar, and player, so I'm a little confused, you seem like a well-read professional minded guy. It's not like you need a 1965 Falcon and a Gretch with the mics at the right place in the room and the tubes heated up to exactly 177 degrees F with the guitarist facing east for just the right amount of 60 cycle crackle in the perfectly dirty pots on a waning crescent moon and a room temperature of 65 degrees and relative humidity at 70%, like my guitar tone.

 

 

Hahaha I liked your post. I really am not worried about getting huge sounding guitars as much as the vocals. I listen to guys that suck like the singer of Puddle of Mudd, Papa Roach, and many other bands with pretty {censored}ty singers. I know they auto tune all their {censored} and edit the {censored} out of every note sang, but do I need do triple or quaduple vocal takes? I kind of thought I got into "doubling" parts vocally or how ever many was the way to get vocals to sound super huge and thick. I'm using API 3124 pre's and A/D converters with my API A2D with a really nice compressor, and a Rode NTK surrounded by Ethan from Real Traps portable vocal booth, and 12 big panels of Owens corning semi-ridged fiberglass. My room finally sounds good. I'm just wondering what techniques pro's use specifically for huge, thick vocals. It's definitely not just the talent of the singer nowdays, though people say I'm great (I'd like to think so) without auto-tune and tons of re-takes. But what kind of effects besides the obvious bit of reverb and of course compression help bring out a big vocal? Should I sing close to the mic? Above or below? I have my mic setup side down like many do. Should I do one from 6", one from 12", and one from 24", and blend the three of those with harmonies? If using a short delay of some kind, how many milliseconds roughly? Any tips on vocal recording?

[newlyformedmind]

 

Dead serious and whatever the processor was it was something {censored}ty. That came straight from them. He couldn't remember exactly what it was but yeah all of that is true.

 

 

 

 

If you don't know the Digitech processor Crossfade used on So Far Away, do you know what effect it is? I wonder if I could get similar sounds via plugins.

[DontLetMeDrown]

 

How come no one has mentioned "Re-amping?"

 

 

Because reamping isn't really a necessary component for getting a big sound. Most people resort to re-amping because they're forced to track in an environment where they can't use an actual amp. If you are going for a big guitar sound, you'd be better off recording extra passes with different amps instead of reamping the same take 3 times.

[Deeprig9]

 

Hahaha I liked your post. I really am not worried about getting huge sounding guitars as much as the vocals. I listen to guys that suck like the singer of Puddle of Mudd, Papa Roach, and many other bands with pretty {censored}ty singers. I know they auto tune all their {censored} and edit the {censored} out of every note sang, but do I need do triple or quaduple vocal takes? I kind of thought I got into "doubling" parts vocally or how ever many was the way to get vocals to sound super huge and thick. I'm using API 3124 pre's and A/D converters with my API A2D with a really nice compressor, and a Rode NTK surrounded by Ethan from Real Traps portable vocal booth, and 12 big panels of Owens corning semi-ridged fiberglass. My room finally sounds good. I'm just wondering what techniques pro's use specifically for huge, thick vocals. It's definitely not just the talent of the singer nowdays, though people say I'm great (I'd like to think so) without auto-tune and tons of re-takes. But what kind of effects besides the obvious bit of reverb and of course compression help bring out a big vocal? Should I sing close to the mic? Above or below? I have my mic setup side down like many do. Should I do one from 6", one from 12", and one from 24", and blend the three of those with harmonies? If using a short delay of some kind, how many milliseconds roughly? Any tips on vocal recording?

 

 

 

Use a good tube preamp, a good mic that costs more than $100, quality cable (this is very understated), and if you've got thousands invested in plugins, there's no reason you can't get ripe vocals. Technically, every vocalist is going to have its own timbre, and it takes a little experience with your gear to build yourself a mental reference on steps to bring out the best of the vocalist, and where his/her/it's natural place in the mix should be, especially in mastering a vertical ocean of hertzes. But again, I'm just an idiot.

[Deeprig9]

You've basically got the gear and sound like an intelligent person, so if your are having a problem, I just naturally default to something wrong with the way you are singing. It could be technique, pitch, or basic songwriting that's a problem. That's not a hit at your project, just saying that sometimes a simple change in melody can change the whole tone of the vocals.

 

 

You aren't clipping the preamp are you?

 

 

 

 

I'm just an idiot, again, I have only limited experience recording.

[nerol1st]

I think vocals should be done alot (at least tripled if not more), for me personally nothing says demo more than just having one vox track in the center. Bear in mind this only pertains to the OP situation (there are other genres where I don't see the point).

 

Although I am not one to talk thats all I record (demos) so yeah...

 

 

Re: Reamping:

 

I always reamp. If I was in a situation where I could isolate the amp enough then I wouldn't, but everytime I have tried in the past to go strait from the amp (without a DI) it was to hard for the guitarist to really hear his/herself. Plus I don't run the risk of someone wanting to use thier Line 6 spider 2 weener combo (lol).

 

Also: Later when I do the reamping (95% by myself, I actually choose the tone ) I can take my time with the mic placement, not have to worry about someone bumping the mic, and the noise in the line is WAY lower (pickup hum is non exsistant, just the normal hiss of the amp).