Tone/Layering/Etc.

soa_bass

Member
Jun 1, 2007
54
0
6
I am thinking about how I want my band's ( I have two ) albums to sound ( going to be recording three albums by the end of the year hopefully ) and I usually feel that most metal bands either have too thin of a guitar/bass sound, or too overpowering. It's like, you hear it, but they either messed with the EQ too much by cutting too many mids or with horrible bass and guitar levels, didn't do enough layers, compressed too much, etc. and it just doesn't sound full, or they put on too much gain or mixed it too loud and it still sounds thin but the perceived loudness is way too high ( I( think by boosting the guitar, and drum levels as high as possible without clipping the signal, could be wrong with this ), but I see that Opeth ( and a few other bands ) have a fairly full sound that is not over-powering. You hear almost every note clearly, and it never gets too loud and doesn't make your ears tired by it having too high of a perceived loudness.

How do they do it? I do not want either band to sound like Opeth stylistically, but I want a full sound like them.

How many guitar tracks for rhythm do they usually have? How often do they harmonize those leads ( sometimes sounds like to me a few have some harmonized parts, but it could be my ears playing tricks on me )?

Do they do anything effects-wise to do it ( such as adding a lot of reverb )? Does it have to do with microphone placement? DO they do mic + line-in? I heard they do a bunch of rhythm tracks with just barely enough distortion, is there any truth in that? Does it have to do with the actually chord and note phrasings themselves, and how they play instead of how they record the sound? Combination of all of these? etc. etc. etc.

I won't have amazing equipment, but I do hope to get a fuller sound, and if any of you have any tips I would appreciate it.

And if I find a specific song by them to use as an example I will post the name.

Thanks ahead of time

=-p =-)

Edit - I just put on " When ", and I do think the snare is just slightly too loud ( by maybe 1 DB, even though I love how it sounds on that album ) but pretty much, to me, that track sounds very full, especially during the heavy parts. In fact, the entire album ( now that I skipped around some tracks ) pretty much has what I feel is the right ' thickness '. Deliverance sounds a bit thinner to me, and so does BWP and GR. They still sound fuller than most albums to me, but MAYH really hits it I think.
 
I dont really have much here I can help you with, but I think on Deliverance they used low level distortion and recorded lots of tracks.

You might want to check in the FAQ if you havent already, there might be some mention of how they get their tone (I cant remember). They also use Boss GT8s live (not sure about studio) if that helps.
 
First of all, don't make the same mistake a lot of metal bands do, by hiring Raymond.

fs_suck_knob.jpg


Seriously, if you are working with a decent engineer who's not too stuck in his (or less frequently, her) ways, you can hopefully work together to create the sound you're going for.

I agree that too many bands are over-compressed and have too much of the mids sucked out. Also, I think they're over-distorted. You can achieve a thick, heavy sound by recording with less gain, but layering. Last I remember from an interview with Mikael and/or Peter (I think it was in the video lesson for Drapery Falls, but I could be wrong...), they said they are recording at least 2 layers a piece.

The sucked-out mid guitar is dated sounding, imo. I prefer a natural guitar sound, and I consider Opeth's sound, particularly recently, to be more natural.

Some of the ear strain associated with listening to a lot of other bands has to do with lack of dynamics, which can be partially blamed on over-compression of each instrument and at the master bus, but also on the music itself. Some genres of metal can be numbingly static in their playing as loud and as fast as possible all the time approaches.

Listen to how Opeth makes use of the stereo image, too. That's another way to prevent listening fatigue. Too many bands simply put kit panned L-R, Bass center, gtr 1 L, gtr 2 r, vox c and keep it that way the whole time. Boooooring! But, on the other hand, too much movement is distracting, so you have to find a happy medium, I think. And part of that, again, has to do with the music. Can it be arranged to make use of the stereo field? BTW, panning things helps prevent frequency masking, and lets the instruments breath a bit more, which means less corrective EQing (the only kind of EQing that ought to be done, imo... if it needs a lot of EQing, the mic placement is probably for shit), which means less phase coherence issues, and so on. It's a simple thing, really. And keep in mind what instruments are where. The less alike they are, they better they will work being panned in similar directions.

Of course, your engineer should know this all. It's pretty basic. If he or she doesn't, WARNING! He may have a "suck button" somewhere on the recording desk!

Moonlapse ought to be able to provide some more info on this, as well. He does a great job at explaining this and is currently working in the biz, and I am, regrettably, not. Best of luck!
 
well, if you want to gain an advantage over the competition, check out this link...

http://forums.clubsnap.com/showpost.php?p=3101948&postcount=26

Not many sound engineers or recording studio's have or use these, I have recently got back into listening to electrostatics, fecking awesome they are, really!

Listen to Anethema's "Alternative 4" CD as a demonstation of these amazing headphone re-producers capabilities.

The h/phone's described are the "Stax Sigma" or Sigma Pro Bias.

http://www.tnt-audio.com/jpeg/t-amp_morsiani.jpg

http://www.tnt-audio.com/ampli/t-amp_morsiani_e.html

No, that guy isn't me!!

Have fun.
 
well, if you want to gain an advantage over the competition, check out this link...

http://forums.clubsnap.com/showpost.php?p=3101948&postcount=26

Not many sound engineers or recording studio's have or use these, I have recently got back into listening to electrostatics, fecking awesome they are, really!

Listen to Anethema's "Alternative 4" CD as a demonstation of these amazing headphone re-producers capabilities.

The h/phone's described are the "Stax Sigma" or Sigma Pro Bias.

http://www.tnt-audio.com/jpeg/t-amp_morsiani.jpg

http://www.tnt-audio.com/ampli/t-amp_morsiani_e.html

No, that guy isn't me!!

Have fun.

Haha! Dcat, haven't seen you 'round here in a while.... Anyhow, those have got to be some of the goofiest looking earspeakers I've ever seen. Okay, so they're the ONLY earspeakers I've ever seen. Doesn't listening to them kind of defeat the purpose of using headphones? Or do you think this might somehow be an improvement over using actual speakers (hard to fathom...). Might be an interesting way of checking a mix at the very least.
 
I try to steer as far away from the imo horrible MAYH sound as possible, so I don't think my tips would work for you.
 
I try to steer as far away from the imo horrible MAYH sound as possible, so I don't think my tips would work for you.

I don't know if you are be sarcastic or what, but I have noticed that the only Opeth album that sounds kind of sloppy when I blast it is MAYH. Don't get me wrong, MYAH is one of my favorite of theirs (I love the story concept albums) but just isn't very clean in production, but some people really like that. I listen to alot of Opeth in my car and when I try blasting some MAYH it just is so bad in EQ department compared to other cds. The heavier riffs come on and you can't even hear Lopez double bass blasts... Ya, like everyone I would try to find the BWP sound...awesome.
 
Mostly for the guitars and growls I really like MAYH ( the bass sound isnt amazing, probably do to Mikael doing it ). BWP also has a very nice sound, but especially for the heavy stuff I prefer how MAYH sounds.

And I wont have a sound engineer... I will be doing it all. I am going to be setting up my own ' studio ' when I get a job. I will be spending about $2,500 total hopefully ( thats full time at minimum wage for about 2 and a half months after taxes ), and will have to do all of the recording, mixing, mastering, etc. by myself.

So don't over-compress, mic up everything properly and have the tone set up right so I rarely have to touch the eq, do multiple tracks using different tones or even different guitars, try to pan things to get an interesting sound when it can be done tastefully ( like in ' When ' when Mikael sings " to find my way back home " ), and dont just go for the average guitar 1 L, guitar 2 R, bass drums and vox Center, don't over-compress, don't scoop out all of the mids, don't over compress, and don't over compress. Oh yeah, and don't tocuh the suck knob lol.

well thanks everyone, appreciate the help
 
You guys who dislike MAYH's sound are crazy. Ghost Reveries sounds ridiculously sterile in comparison.

Well if your definition of sterile is polished and clear and as even as possible, than I agree. If your definition of sterile is boring and lacking power than I couldnt disagree more. It may not be a very unique production as opposed to any other band nowadays, buts its the best production possible so thats why its used so much. Its fine if you like MAYH's sound more but I think your word choice is a little off if you think GR is sterile.
 
Time for an audio upgrade me-thinks...

To the posters who diss MAYH's production!

It's a constant irritant to read and not know what kit was used to playback said CD being attacted on it's sonic merits. :erk:

Take your copy of Hearse to your friendly local Stax dealer and ask for a demo...

It will change your whole perspect of domestic sound re-production, imho.

@Soundave,

"Or do you think this might somehow be an improvement over using actual speakers (hard to fathom...). Might be an interesting way of checking a mix at the very least."

After careful thought, "possibly a first for me also" ;) imagine putting each ear into a separate anechoic chamber, "zero crosstalk" and hearing the stereo soundstage come together in your head...

These earspeakers are indeed a reference listening tool, sound re-produced even through modest source components is in a word "Remarkable!"

Not perfect though, but they are brutaly honest and revealing, showing up bad edits, changed settings and all sorts of other evils that get through to the final mixdown. :(

I hope Mike has / gets a set! :)

:kickass:

:Edit: Stax current flagship Ear-speaker is the Omega 11, 2K+ UKP new, a revelation in listening apparently, 'I've not demo'd em yet' many who have say the Sigma's better them in soundstaging and vocal rendition, + they are more comfortable to wear for long periods, an absolute professional requirement.

Check em out Dave and first poster, :) E-bay could be your friend, I did alright a little while ago. :D
 
Check em out Dave and first poster, :) E-bay could be your friend, I did alright a little while ago. :D

Well out of my price range, I'm afraid. I'd love to demo 'em, though. Or maybe I wouldn't, so I wouldn't know what I was missing!
 
Well, given that you plan to do the entire recording process yourself, I do hope that you feel confident in your abilities as a producer/engineer as much as a musician.

I've been engineering professionally full time now (both study and work) for over 3 years, and sometimes I don't feel confident working on a full album release.

It's worth noting that it's a skillset all on its own. Just like you wouldn't let a guitarist who's been playing for 6 months do session work on your album, you shouldn't have a 6-month engineering skillset attempting to see you through two albums. This may or may not be a mis-analogy in your case, but I hope it establishes my point somewhat.

Good luck!
 
Well, given that you plan to do the entire recording process yourself, I do hope that you feel confident in your abilities as a producer/engineer as much as a musician.

I've been engineering professionally full time now (both study and work) for over 3 years, and sometimes I don't feel confident working on a full album release.

It's worth noting that it's a skillset all on its own. Just like you wouldn't let a guitarist who's been playing for 6 months do session work on your album, you shouldn't have a 6-month engineering skillset attempting to see you through two albums. This may or may not be a mis-analogy in your case, but I hope it establishes my point somewhat.

Good luck!

I think you're right on, Moonlapse.

@ OP, what sort of engineering experience do you have? What will you be using to track and mix? You should at least read up on recording techniques before tackling this. There is a LOT to consider. A good recording is HARD to do: it takes planning, practice, and a good ear at the very least.
 
Might add something else. This might purely be my opinion, but I really don't think $2,500 worth of recording gear is enough for release-quality results. That amount of money may get you a good 1 or 2 channel preamp, but not much more than that. Probably better off putting that money towards booking studio time with a good metal producer/engineer.
 
Hmm. I've been wondering about sound leveling between instruments and using different recording techniques. I've been putting the ideas in my tracks for a while now, and they really do sound good for home recordings. I've gotten praise for guitar tone before, although it could have been a coincidence or something that just happened to be luck. I guess 3 years of recording songs on my computer actually helped out my ability to produce stuff. Heh. :erk: