IN YOUR FACE MASSIVE GUITAR TONE: Cab mic'ing tip!

[miche]

Thanks a lot for your very detailed reply, drew.

Obviously, I made a confusion. The other guy that talked about pink noise was using it to find the sweet spot for one mic as well. I thought you were using it that way too, not only for the second.

Your technique seems to work pretty well, though. It gives some good beef. I will for sure use in the future, but I have to do something else first...

Unfortunately, this doesn't solve my initial problem. I don't understand, no one seems to have the 3k->6k extreme harshness I am struggling with (or not in the same proportions), plus that weird boxy feel. I am obviously doing something wrong, but I would love to discover what.

 

[Arsenu,]

great thread and a very interesting read!

(*waiting for someone to pick up the glove and make a tutorial video of this method and maybe another one for the Fredman for comparison)

 

[Clark Kent]

Well I guess I could make a video out of this but it wouldn't make a difference you know... When ever I place a mic in front of a cab I place it where it sounds good to me. Someone else could easily disagree with my mic placement. I just use MY ears and I get results that please MY ears. And sure I use meters too but I've been mic'ing for so long that I'm usually just trying to find something interesting and different so METERS OFF is how I run things nowadays.

 

[RaNk]

Nice thread. I find the method of getting a phase flipped ugly tone and then flipping the phase to normal again really interesting. Definitely gonna try that. I've been experimenting with dual microphone technique so much lately, but it gives so many options to deal with, that it's near imposible to get a 'method' for it. What I'm trying now, is use two cabinets and use an E906 on the cabinet with the nicest lows (lower speaker). Then I use an Sm57 on the cabinet that has the more piercing sound (upper speaker). I use amp noise to get them in phase like some of you explained before, tried it with pink noise too but I get the same position out of that.

I thought I'd post a clip of this, to show how the two microphones work together using the setup I'm trying out now.

E906 only:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/19759737/E906.mp3

Sm57:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/19759737/Sm57.mp3

Mixed:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/19759737/Sm57+E906.mp3

I'd really like to know how you guys EQ the two tracks in the mix when using dual microphones. I just EQ them on the total guitar bus. I tried alot using EQ on the seperate tracks, but it always sounds very unnatural/strange to me. And I'm not over-EQing I think (max 1.5dB range). I searched for this and I found using more mids on one and less mids on the other, but I cannot get that to work personally. Some tips on this would be very nice.

 

[Clark Kent]

Well EQing mics separately will make things even more complicated. I guess it makes sense if you are using one mic for the low end and another mic for the high end. So the low end mic has a high cut and he high end mic has a low cut so that there are no overlapping frequencies.

However that's a completely different way of dual mic'ing a cab. Using two mics with this phase flip technique will lead to adding clarity and beef while removing fizz. There is no mic for low end and a mic for high end.

 

[RedDog]

If and when you EQ separate mics, I feel it's trying to isolate what you just spent twenty minutes trying to highlight. the phase interactions between the two mics is very much the basis of this style of micing. If you're HPing one and LPing another, you're essentially making this huge crossover band smaller, which is the very band you want.

 

[miche]

Well I guess I could make a video out of this but it wouldn't make a difference you know...

I would actually be really interested in *hearing* well the two fizzes you were talking about. An MP3 of your mic sweep with a tiny explanaition (like "at 00:32 -> fist fizz; at 00:55 -> second fizz; at 01:20 -> good balance") would be gold

I thought I'd post a clip of this, to show how the two microphones work together using the setup I'm trying out now.

I am curious about your 57 position, is it a lot off axis or outside the cone? You managed to tame the 6k frequency pretty well.

After what I have read, the idea is to treat the two mics alltogether. If I understood well, the two mics could even be recorded to one track if you feel like you know what you are doing (I tend to prefer non destructive treatment).

If you want to treat the two tracks separately, watch out for:
1) phase issues if you do not use a linear EQ (someone correct my if I am wrong).
2) delay compensation that may be higher on one track than another and that may end up slightly breaking the alignment of the two tracks in some DAW. I happened to have some comb filtering issues doing this.

 

[RaNk]

Well looking from that perspective it's indeed different. What lead me to trying this is that I always got a tone that wasn't beefy enough. I could raise the bass on the amp, but then it got muddy. So I decided to get a cab/mic combo that got nicer lows on the same amp setting. I thought by phase aligning them as good as possible, I could just mix the 'low end combo' in just so the tone sounded a bit fatter, while the 'Sm57 tone' stays intact. However, I feel that it also cancelled the fizz a bit, so that was a nice bonus. Probably the tiny fizz still around when 'exactly' in fase, is what gets cancelled when flipped around? But what I read from you guys, is that you're actually doing dual micing technique to 'avoid' having to take out too much fizz by EQ? With that in mind I think it's best to not EQ seperately, or isn't that basically the advice you are giving? At least probably you have to know exactly what you're doing with the EQ, I think that's why I got the weird sound I talked about. Mostly I'm just fooling around, but learning and having fun doing it.

Miche, the position of the Sm57 is 20 degrees, positioned at the upper right cone of the cab, but aimed at the left of the cone (because of the 20 degrees). It's near touching the grill. The E906 is on the lower left of the other cab, on axis but aimed at the (right) edge of the cone. And then I phase aligned that, I keep the Sm57 in position. I took those positions to get the least possible spill from each cabinet into the mics, as they are standing next to eachother. I hope the explanation makes sense?

 

[miche]

@RaNk: Thanks for those details. The explanation makes sense
One last thing about your mic placement: do you usually fight hard to get that irritating 6k frequency down (the hole in your tone is at 6.2k/6.3k more or less)?

I know Andy says (or at least was saying, maybe this changed?) he prefers to use one mic only and nearly no EQ. If anyone can do it like that and have the gold tone, well I really would like to understand how you do it

I'd say that adding another mic is the best way to go if you fail with only one 57 and no EQ. It should tighten the whole thing and hopefully kill some fizz, with a result much more natural than eq'ing.

I tried taking only some part (using hi or lo pass filters) of the additional mic to add some low or high end only. The result was clearly disappointing. If someone managed to get a good tone doing this, I am interested to hear their story.

Maybe we should try adding more mics, like SigmundFreud33 with adding a third i5.

SigmundFreud33, you talked about a nasty 12k. But what if the area that is giving you a hard time is the 6k peak and the 3-5k region?

 

[RaNk]

Miche, np, what I'm usually fighting with is mostly in the 3/5 Kh area. To be honest I usually end up boosting the 6K area a little bit, but not much. I find it hard to dial in the amp usually, also having trouble with low mids. I have always have to cut that about 1.5dB and still it sounds a bit boxy I think. Maybe it's the room, the cab, I don't know. Also tried EQ between preamp and poweramp, but that always sounds bad when I try it. So for me that's not an option. I feel the same about what you say on the 1 mic only, I can't get that right. Maybe I should concentrate more on that before going dual mix, but I'm not sure. My sound isn't that good, but still with 2 mics it's the best I got so far. Sorry for going off topic a bit.

But concluding on my experiment, I started that not to fight the fizz, but to add more beef. But with help from this thread, the 'less fizz when combining the mics' is probably the best 'side effect' I got so far when trying to get a nice tone.

Even more mics might help, but I find 2 already hard enough to get it right.

 

[Clark Kent]

Well using more than two mics will make things complicated. It's easy to have two mics working together but if you add a third mic there might not even be a spot where it works with the other two mics.

 

[miche]

---> sweep the mic through the edge and center of the best sounding speaker in your cabinet. You'll notice it gives you two kind of fizzy sounds, one on the edge and one on the center. This sweetspot for me would be when I have the same amount of both fizzy sounds. The fizzy sounds kind of eliminate each other.

Clark, would you mind giving us a little more information on this part?

And for the multi mic thing: if you use the technique you described to position two mics, they are expected to be on phase. If you now mute the second mic and use your tip again with the third mic, all mics should be on phase and therefore work well together, no?

 

[shredder10]

what about phasing issues while adding a room mic?

 

[Uros]

I'd advise strongly against using different EQ settings per mic when you dual mic an amp. One of the most important things in recording music is the ability to commit IMO, and not to get hung up on too many choices. Set up 1 mic, add another, match them, route to bus/use auxes (depends on host), print their sum, and bam! The end.

 

[Clark Kent]

Clark, would you mind giving us a little more information on this part?

And for the multi mic thing: if you use the technique you described to position two mics, they are expected to be on phase. If you now mute the second mic and use your tip again with the third mic, all mics should be on phase and therefore work well together, no?

Well I guess I can't make it any clearer in writing. I guess I'll have to show it somehow. I won't be at the studio until next week so maybe then.

The multi mic thing: Yes those mics will be in phase with each other but being in phase and sounding good together is two different things. Remember that the phase flip thing is not just for getting the mics in phase. There are unlimited options for two mics to be in phase. Basically it's all about the mics being the same distance from the speaker. So three mics at the same distance will be in phase with each other. Will they sound good together? Most likely not but you should def. try it.

 

[Clark Kent]

what about phasing issues while adding a room mic?

Well room mics are so far away that what we hear as "phase" isn't a problem. Room mic is like a realistic reverb on you guitar tone. (and I don't suggest using any kind of reverbish for tight metal mixes)

Just to make it clear to you guys: Have you ever heard of an effect pedal called a "phaser"? It works by playing two (or more depending on a phaser) guitar signals and constantly changing the phase time. Like f.ex. from 15ms-40ms. (also depends on phaser) When that phase time is long enough people won't hear it as a phaser effect but a delay. (which it actually was all along)

 

[Clark Kent]

I'd advise strongly against using different EQ settings per mic when you dual mic an amp. One of the most important things in recording music is the ability to commit IMO, and not to get hung up on too many choices. Set up 1 mic, add another, match them, route to bus/use auxes (depends on host), print their sum, and bam! The end.

+1.

 

[drew_drummer]

I wouldn't bother with a room microphone personally. My take on rhythm guitars is this - capture the most dry and full chunky tone you can, and add reverb later. It's a bit different when you're doing the atmospheric metal stuff like what we do, but if you're doing tight tech metal, you need to control the amount of ambience and reflections going back into your microphones. It'll just mush up and wont give you the br00tz.

 

[The-Zeronaut]

and now im gonna ask a very n00b question...

how do i know which is the best speaker in a cab?
the obvious answer is "the one that sounds best"...i know...
BUT is there something specific that i should be looking for?
something that i should hear (or not)?

I would actually be really interested in *hearing* well the two fizzes you were talking about. An MP3 of your mic sweep with a tiny explanaition (like "at 00:32 -> fist fizz; at 00:55 -> second fizz; at 01:20 -> good balance") would be gold

+1

 

[Clark Kent]

and now im gonna ask a very n00b question...

how do i know which is the best speaker in a cab?
the obvious answer is "the one that sounds best"...i know...
BUT is there something specific that i should be looking for?
something that i should hear (or not)?

Well you should judge with your own ears. "The best sounding speaker" that I'd choose might not be "the best sounding speaker" for you.