cool im actually borrowing the i5. you run an i5 and sm57 like this? i need to experiment with this setup further, because i think that currently the micing job emphasized the mids too much
1 song, 2 amps. guess wether the mp3 is tube or digital modelling
- Thread starter MegaGoo
- Start date
cool im actually borrowing the i5. you run an i5 and sm57 like this? i need to experiment with this setup further, because i think that currently the micing job emphasized the mids too much
I love the i5. I also pulled the transformer out of my 57, which made it a lot more open and responsive - in other words, more like a 57 but still with a more 'classic' feel to it. Spend a good bit of time with small time shifts between your two tracks, too, as that'll have a huge impact on how things combine. I put comparisons between tiny time shifts up a while ago, and now have no idea where they went, but if I recall what the thread was I'll send it to you - it can really have a massive impact, the difference between 'well, getting there...' and 'holy fucking shit' if you spend enough time on it.
Jeff
Jeff
so like, offset say the i5 track of tack 1 by a few milliseconds? and maybe offset the sm57 of the other take by a few seconds? that might be cool..
I don't know how familiar you are with that specific technique, so forgive me if I tell you something you already know.
What you're trying to do with those two mics (note that I'm assuming you're using the Fredman technique in the way described by the gigantic thread on that topic) is naturally remove a lot of the harsh and unpleasant nonsense from the top end while reinforcing mids and bass in a way more graceful than just cranking things up with an EQ. To do this, you have to find an arrangement that cancels out a lot of the toppy crackle and very little of the meat. Moving the tracks back and forth a little with the DAW is similar to moving them back and forth from the amp relative to the other mic, in a very loose sense (but not when it comes to anything involving EQ or response - just think of it as a way to tweak your relative positioning if you don't spend enough time on it before tracking), so take advantage of that and find the best combination of the two. What I do to figure out what positioning is best is flip the phase and try to get as little mid/bass and as much fizz as possible with the flipped track, and since this is the stuff that will be cancelled when the phase is flipped back it's a good indicator of how the track won't sound.
I would move them the same amount - you're looking to find the 'sweet spot', not to have some bizarre slapback that makes no sense in the grand scheme of things. Find what gets you the most of what you want and the least of what you don't with the time shifting, and leave it at that for right now.
Jeff
What you're trying to do with those two mics (note that I'm assuming you're using the Fredman technique in the way described by the gigantic thread on that topic) is naturally remove a lot of the harsh and unpleasant nonsense from the top end while reinforcing mids and bass in a way more graceful than just cranking things up with an EQ. To do this, you have to find an arrangement that cancels out a lot of the toppy crackle and very little of the meat. Moving the tracks back and forth a little with the DAW is similar to moving them back and forth from the amp relative to the other mic, in a very loose sense (but not when it comes to anything involving EQ or response - just think of it as a way to tweak your relative positioning if you don't spend enough time on it before tracking), so take advantage of that and find the best combination of the two. What I do to figure out what positioning is best is flip the phase and try to get as little mid/bass and as much fizz as possible with the flipped track, and since this is the stuff that will be cancelled when the phase is flipped back it's a good indicator of how the track won't sound.
I would move them the same amount - you're looking to find the 'sweet spot', not to have some bizarre slapback that makes no sense in the grand scheme of things. Find what gets you the most of what you want and the least of what you don't with the time shifting, and leave it at that for right now.
Jeff
so you mean move it back and forth = leaving 1 mic at full volume adn bringing the other in and out?
I can appreciate a joke, I just fail to see what was funny about what you said.
obviously
anyway, i suppose most people (like me) choose no 2 to be the tube amp because of the thread, makes you look for other things to find whats right. and since they were not "identical" its easy to just choose the one that sounds the best/worst.
Both at full volume, it's more like physically moving one around tiny little fractions of an inch at a time because it'll change the way the waves cancel each other out.
Jeff
Frankzappa
Member
- Jun 14, 2007
- 375
- 0
- 16
I thought it was pretty funnyI can appreciate a joke, I just fail to see what was funny about what you said.
i'm assuming the extent of the tube's effect on the tone is as much as a johnson mellineum that i had, which isnt much. could be wrong.
even through my engl power amp section, it doesnt have that bite that the engl has, which is why i would only use the 2101 as an fx processor. it'd probably pass decently for a preamp/fx if need be though..
Similar threads
