Systematic Mixing Series #1: Poking Holes in High-Gain Guitars
- Thread starter Ermz
- Start date
darthjujuu
Member
extremely well-written, Ermin. i've been reaching for ReaEQ all this time when it comes down to surgical cuts on my rhythm guitar bus, mainly cause of the flexibility / pleasant response of the interface, do any of you guys find you can get things sitting nicely quicker when using a more CPU hungry EQ? Or does analog emulation not benefit a ton in this department, when we really just need to make certain frequencies disappear??
JeffTD
Senhor Testiculo
Julien, I really love apQualizer for this type of notching. It's super cheap and you can create any amount of whatever kind of eq band you want. It's CPU friendly, and I find the built-in spectrum analyzer to be extremely helpful in locating problem areas, as well as quickly locating things like fundamental frequencies in drums.
shredder10
Replace that #@#|@#â!!
This is actually a MUST read!
Sometimes you just feel a bit lost when guitars are out of control.
I'm sure this will help right away!
Sometimes you just feel a bit lost when guitars are out of control.
I'm sure this will help right away!
darthjujuu
Member
Morgan C
MAX LOUD PRESETS¯\(°_o)/¯
This and mic placement would be awesome. I'll have a chance to record a $15k Engl rig later this year and the last time I recorded guitars was with a 57 on the front and beta52 pointing at the BACK of the speaker, at the back of the cab, whilst the cab was on a bench. Oh and it was a $400 Line 6 Spider something.
However, understandable if you want to keep this just mixing.
Uros
Sonic Incision
To my knowledge and experience, character eqs are only 'wanted' when you make boosts, because our ears are very sensitive to frequency boosts, so to speak. Personally, I use character eqs only for boosting, and a transparent eq for cutting and notching stuff out.
I generally use the monitoring 38% rule with placing cabs. Stay away from walls, stay away from corners, and avoid putting it directly in the center of any room. ~38% of the length of the room is an ideal spot for minimizing bass nodes and nulls.
darthjuju said:
eQuality is good for this. it has a bunch of different phase modes, depending on the type of EQ you want to use, and your CPU headroom.
Having said that, I use plain 'Digital' EQ for this stuff about 99% of the time. Haven't found much to be gained from analogue-esque EQs for notching and overall subtraction purposes.
Morgan C said:
I was one of those guys who preferred using the top speakers in a 4x12. To me they generally (not hard and fast rule since V30s vary so much individually) sound more balanced across the mids, and have less weird scoopage/low bump going on.
Going further into this would take the guide more into the realms of tracking territory though, and that isn't what it's about!
Jaymz
Stymphalian Productions
I should post a pic of the room I reamp in...its not even pushing 3x3m, cab not parallel to any walls (diagonal & in the midde of the room) and thats about it. Its certainly do-able but not ideal thats for sure. Higher the volume, the more reflections.
Edit: Here's a bad shot I took earlier while I was reamping if anybodys even interested, you can see the edge of the door just next to the cab. I put the panel there because I have it out spare so I did it: http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/BloodThrone/P1020686.jpg
Edit: Here's a bad shot I took earlier while I was reamping if anybodys even interested, you can see the edge of the door just next to the cab. I put the panel there because I have it out spare so I did it: http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/BloodThrone/P1020686.jpg
Nebulous
Daniel
egan.
daylightdies.com
It's always interesting to learn different approaches. One thing I'll add is that in the spectrum of analog it's a real PITA to start ripping 10+ bands of EQ on multiple guitar channels. Of course you could eq to tape but I really don't think most analog guys are getting that surgical.
That is indeed a very good read. Thanks Ermz.
Somehow interesting to see that AE's who really go deep into such exciting content like balancing guitar frequencies (imagine discussing this stuff with non AE's) are all digging out the same kind of truth.
now that's real occult knowledge :Spin:
Somehow interesting to see that AE's who really go deep into such exciting content like balancing guitar frequencies (imagine discussing this stuff with non AE's) are all digging out the same kind of truth.
now that's real occult knowledge :Spin:
Vinny
Member
I'm sorry, but I couldn't help but to remember this picture of Nordstrom's studio when yall were talking about room size...
Of course Norstrom is a legend, but this room is nowhere near 5x5m, or 10x10m for that matter, and he gets some of the greatest tones in all of Metal.
Just saying, for those of you who think you are doomed with small rooms. It comes down to how well you know how to actually mic a guitar cab up and make use of what you have.
Of course Norstrom is a legend, but this room is nowhere near 5x5m, or 10x10m for that matter, and he gets some of the greatest tones in all of Metal.
Just saying, for those of you who think you are doomed with small rooms. It comes down to how well you know how to actually mic a guitar cab up and make use of what you have.
Ola Englund
Only gay in the village
Ben Johnson
SSSSSSSSSSSSSS
^ haha.
Look, in all fairness, the top guys have achieved world-class results in subpar rooms, the best records ever have been recorded in closets onto cassettes blah blah blah.
My question to you all is this:
Do you look to the future with the ambition of improving the craft of engineering across the board, by setting new standards, or are you content being an imitation of the guys who are currently at the top?
Fair enough that good results can be achieved in less than ideal conditions. I understand. But if you were to improve those circumstances, who knows how much better the end product could have been? Or at the very least, how much less stressful if would have made the mix process? Who is to say that they wouldn't jump at the chance to have massive tracking spaces under the circumstances? I'd like to think most people would love to have a tracking room like Avatar studios, but simply can't afford it.
My attitude is one to keep the production values as high as possible throughout the whole process. I really don't care what other guys have used to get their results. I'm always striving for the best under my own circumstances, and my suggestion would be that you all do the same.
Not looking to inflame a debate, as that's about all I have to say on the matter, and it's mostly to give you perspective on why I advocate using larger tracking spaces.
Anyhow, back to writing the drum part of this series..
Look, in all fairness, the top guys have achieved world-class results in subpar rooms, the best records ever have been recorded in closets onto cassettes blah blah blah.
My question to you all is this:
Do you look to the future with the ambition of improving the craft of engineering across the board, by setting new standards, or are you content being an imitation of the guys who are currently at the top?
Fair enough that good results can be achieved in less than ideal conditions. I understand. But if you were to improve those circumstances, who knows how much better the end product could have been? Or at the very least, how much less stressful if would have made the mix process? Who is to say that they wouldn't jump at the chance to have massive tracking spaces under the circumstances? I'd like to think most people would love to have a tracking room like Avatar studios, but simply can't afford it.
My attitude is one to keep the production values as high as possible throughout the whole process. I really don't care what other guys have used to get their results. I'm always striving for the best under my own circumstances, and my suggestion would be that you all do the same.
Not looking to inflame a debate, as that's about all I have to say on the matter, and it's mostly to give you perspective on why I advocate using larger tracking spaces.
Anyhow, back to writing the drum part of this series..
John_C
formerly Skeksis268
JeffTD
Senhor Testiculo
The problem with this question is that it suggests you think your methods are getting you, or will in the future get you better tones than the guys at the top. I really do not think this is at all the case, which is why I still look at the methods used by the guys who are currently at the top. They've gotten the best tones to date (IMO), so they're obviously doing something right. I'd be stupid to not use those methods just because they're the status quo or what's used currently and aren't 'improving the craft of engineering.'
It doesn't. It advocates the idea of always striving for better, no matter the circumstance, and the attempt to develop a sense of individuality.
The whole situation boils down to the assumption that taking a chain run in a small room, be it world class, average, or whatever else, and transporting it into a larger space would conceivably lead to clearer results by default. Given proven acoustic principles, this would be a fair position to take, and a bit odd to dispute.
People are, at the end of the day, free to do as they will, and explore whatever methods they want. I would just suggest that simply because Nordstrom has achieved some great tones in a less than ideal room doesn't mean that the average Joe wouldn't get a leg up by using a larger space in his own endeavors. What seems 'stupid' to me is to arbitrarily cripple oneself by using a yardstick which isn't necessarily applicable to one's circumstance, nor skillset.
I do also appreciate the desire to take opportune digs at my methods whenever possible, but consider it perhaps a bit misplaced in a thread entirely dedicated to documenting them.
