And Trevoire520 did it...

[Deltones]

Personally I've found that eq'd guitars generally suck ass. It sounds so much better to get the source right so you have to do as little eq'ing as possible in my opinion.

He basically put into words the meaning of my existential crisis as far "get the source right" is concerned. What is a right source? When checking out some of the mixes in the "Rate my mix" forum, the results are always after the fact i.e processing. Regardless of the tone signature (Ex: Exodus doesn't sound like Slayer), is there a raw guitar track on these forums that you guys all agree have the right stuff frequency-wise as a starting point?

For example, I made myself a thrashy kind of preset with the Axe-Fx. I THINK it sounds ok as far as raw material is concerned, but that's just the thing: I'm not sure if it is.

Like Trevoire, I'm a believer in getting the source right. But I don't have the experience to know when it is. That's the sucky part.

Oh, if you were curious, here's what I came up with the Axe-Fx:

http://soundcloud.com/deltones/axefx_thrashtest_1

 

[ahjteam]

put it in context. it doesn't really matter how it sounds alone.

 

[Deltones]

put it in context. it doesn't really matter how it sounds alone.

I think it does, because most of the time, you're not going to have the context. And most importantly, convincing yourself or another guitar player that nope, the sound you or he came up with, while it might sound pretty damn cool when chugging along all by your lonesome, will cause problems if it remains the source as is.

 

[Jormyn]

I'm not sure you can realistically get a "final" guitar tone at the source without simply doing a lot of EQ in amp chain. You're always going to have bass and drums to work with, areas that will need to be carved out to make room, etc. No?

 

[Deltones]

I'm not sure you can realistically get a "final" guitar tone at the source without simply doing a lot of EQ in amp chain. You're always going to have bass and drums to work with, areas that will need to be carved out to make room, etc. No?

I'm not necessarily talking about a "final" guitar tone (although that would be nice), but more of "tracking/mixing engineer approved" one frequency-wise.

 

[ahjteam]

I think it does, because most of the time, you're not going to have the context. And most importantly, convincing yourself or another guitar player that nope, the sound you or he came up with, while it might sound pretty damn cool when chugging along all by your lonesome, will cause problems if it remains the source as is.

If your music doesn't have any other elements than a single guitar, then yes. then it matter how it sounds by itself. But once you have 4 guitars, drums, bass, vocals and possibly some other instruments too, you really have to make the guitar tone something that might not sound good by itself. Most likely really thin and something like that.

 

[P-E]

But once you have 4 guitars, drums, bass, vocals and possibly some other instruments too, you really have to make the guitar tone something that might not sound good by itself. Most likely really thin and something like that.

No. A good guitar tone NEVER sounds really thin and something like that, whether it's in the mix or not. It sounds thinner to leave place for the bass but shouldn't sound really thin.

And to the OP, the tone sounds weak IMO, might be a bit undergained, lacks "balls", but without trying it in context you'll never know what it's really worth.

 

[JeffTD]

Honestly, it just comes with experience. Eventually, your ears will be tuned so that what you perceive to be "good tone" will be a tone that sounds good in a mix, and you will start tweaking towards that.

If your music doesn't have any other elements than a single guitar, then yes. then it matter how it sounds by itself. But once you have 4 guitars, drums, bass, vocals and possibly some other instruments too, you really have to make the guitar tone something that might not sound good by itself. Most likely really thin and something like that.

I completely disagree - the whole "individual elements suck but the mix as a whole is great" theory is horseshit to me. The individual elements being great and gelling together is what makes a mix great.

 

[Trevoire520]

I read the thread title and my first thought was "shit... what did I do?"

Ahj is right that context is very important. A tone that sounds great on it's own might not work well within a mix.
This doesn't necessarily mean that a tone that works in the mix will sound garbage on it's own though.
I find the best way to get my tones right is to make a quick clip with drums and bass and record a clean di of the guitar track, then reamp the guitar and adjust the amp settings while listening to the whole mix. This should help you to get a handle on what kind of settings will work in the context of a mix.

As far as your clip goes I think you've got too much mid's in there, pull them back and things should start sounding better. Pretty sure I can hear a bit of room reverb there too, best to leave it dry as you can always add reverb later. But once it's recorded you can't take it away.

 

[guitarguru777]

I just love the guys that argue with the forum regulars around here. Especially guys who get great mixes like AHJ does.

Seriously, you can get get "good tone" without knowing what you are working with when it comes tot he rest of the mix. Good tone is a percieved thing, It all revolves around the mix and what tone works for THAT mix.

I also will say that post EQ sucks ass on guitars, get it right at the source is 100% the correct thing to do. Thats why WE ALL record DI's and re-amp later. Get the rest of the mix sounding great then re-amp your guitars to fit the mix.

 

[Deltones]

I also will say that post EQ sucks ass on guitars, get it right at the source is 100% the correct thing to do. Thats why WE ALL record DI's and re-amp later. Get the rest of the mix sounding great then re-amp your guitars to fit the mix.

I agree that getting it right at the source is 100% correct thing to do. But isn't it kind of a contradictory thing to say that you guys all record DI and re-amp later? To me, that's fitting the source to the rest of the material, not exactly getting the source right the first time. Of course, what's important is the end result, and if re-amping is your prefered method of getting a good guitar sound, then great. But that still doesn't answer the question about what is considered good raw material if DI is not used.

Oh and thanks for all your input guys, much appreciated.

 

[guitarguru777]

Good raw material is completely subjective. What kind of music, what are they tuned to, what fits the song .... its all subjective to the producer / listener.

If it sounds good to your ears go with it. If it sounds like shit in the mix change it .... easy

There is no ONE thing or Multiple things that make up a guitar tone. Its too complex of a thing to try and nail down and say hey, this is good tone this is shitty tone. As long as it doesn't sound like bee's buzzing and it doesn't sound like the guitar speakers are buried under a blanket then you are good to go, unless of course those are the characteristics you are going for.

That being said my amps are normally dialed in just about exactly the same for every project I do. Usually only mic position / how many mics, guitars and boost pedals change. Different amps for different tones, but I rarely fuck with my EQ settings on my amps, MAYBE I will add some highs or fuck with resonance and presence but other then then its usually the same.

 

[ahjteam]

Especially guys who get great mixes like AHJ does.

lies

No. A good guitar tone NEVER sounds really thin and something like that, whether it's in the mix or not. It sounds thinner to leave place for the bass but shouldn't sound really thin.

HIGHLY subject matter. I wouldn't call this super thick guitar tone for example (but these kind of speeds don't allow very thick guitar tones either tho):



But in context with the bass and drums it sounds really full:

 

[Trevoire520]

I wouldn't call this super thick guitar tone for example (but these kind of speeds don't allow very thick guitar tones either tho)

BOOM!

Ahj just dropped some knowledge! Something that's often very overlooked too.

Super fast and super thick do not always go well together!

As a general rule, the faster something is, the thinner it needs to be to keep it's definition in the mix.
That's why fast double kicks need tons of high end compared to the slower kicks in a classic rock band. That's why bands shred up on the high strings and not so much on the lower ones. To get definition and stop everything from turning into a blur of bass (i.e. mud)

So if you're playing death metal riffs at a gazillion miles an hour, chances are your guitars will benefit from being a bit thinner than you first think.

(Disclaimer: Take this post with a big fat IMHO. This is just something to think about and not necessarily a black and white thing. No doubt someone will be along in a second to completely disagree with me, call me a dick, and say I don't know what I'm talking about.)

 

[ahjteam]

BOOM!

Ahj just dropped some knowledge! Something that's often very overlooked too.

Super fast and super thick do not always go well together!

As a general rule, the faster something is, the thinner it needs to be to keep it's definition in the mix.
That's why fast double kicks need tons of high end compared to the slower kicks in a classic rock band. That's why bands shred up on the high strings and not so much on the lower ones. To get definition and stop everything from turning into a blur of bass (i.e. mud)

So if you're playing death metal riffs at a gazillion miles an hour, chances are your guitars will benefit from being a bit thinner than you first think.

(Disclaimer: Take this post with a big fat IMHO. This is just something to think about and not necessarily a black and white thing. No doubt someone will be along in a second to completely disagree with me, call me a dick, and say I don't know what I'm talking about.)

Yup. Speed is a very crucial factor that many people don't account for.

And if you don't believe me (or Trevoire), you can make a really simple test that shouldn't take more than 5 minutes at most to prep. Take a drum sampler and use just any kick sample where you think the low end sounds "huge". Dance kicks are really good for this test too, doesn't need to be a metal kick. Start from 60bpm and make it play 16th notes and raise the tempo by increments of 5bpm every 2 bars. Most likely sounds really fucking awesome most of the time, right?

Totally depends on the sound, but at some point there becomes a point where the low end of the sound starts to thin out and/or get really blurry because the low end starts to cancel out each other because the lowest cycles can't do a full cycle before the next hit already comes in (for example constant 16th notes at 250bpm has minimal interval of 60Hz, so anything below that becomes almost "useless") and the masking by the higher frequencies becomes a factor too. If you have a nice round sounding 150hz, but you have a huge bump at 300hz, you can't hear anything below the 300hz.

Around after/by 230-270 bpm and up or around at that point it becomes more benefial just let the bass guitar dominate alone on the 0-80hz range and not to have anything below 100hz on the kick and just use a sidechained 50-60hz sinewave for the signal for the actual low end of the kick, which then is also double sidechained from kick to bass to let the bass duck just a bit to let the low end sine play thru.

That's why for example the kick sample of bands that have a lot of technical kick playing like Fear Factory sounds pretty much 80% attack and sounds just like "tik tik tik" with very minimal low end.

edit: like this, the thing starts at 60bpm and ends at 350 bpm (which essentially is the same as 32th notes at 175 bpm), speed gets bumped up by 5bpm everytime you hear a snare http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1338211/kickspeed.mp3

But yeah, I kinda agree that the guitar sound on the OP kinda does lack bite.

 

[Deltones]

But yeah, I kinda agree that the guitar sound on the OP kinda does lack bite.

I snipped the part about the kick example. It's a good post, but kicks are relatively simple to understand as far as frequency content goes.

You know, probably most of the guys here have read Slipperman's Recording Guitars From Hell thread. The part I find the most disappointing about it is that, to the best of my knowledge, he never got to post the guitar clips in his examples. I have the drums and bass clips (unprocessed and processed) but not the guitars. These would probably have answered my question.

In the meantime, there's this thread going that accumulates the links to songs for mixing practice. I'll check them out and see what I can learn from the raw guitar tracks.

As for the clip I posted in the OP, when you're talking about bite, you're talking about the level of gain? The high frequency content? I have to admit that I'm really not a fan of modern metal tone. I'm more of an 80's thrash fan although I really like the sound Suicidal Angels have on "Dead Again"

 

[Geno_]

. Thats why WE ALL record DI's and re-amp later.

i totally need to get a di/reamp box...