ADA Depot - A Forum To Support Users of ADA Amplification Gear

Miscellaneous => Recording - Studio Talk => Topic started by: El Chiguete on June 15, 2015, 09:38:57 PM

Title: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: El Chiguete on June 15, 2015, 09:38:57 PM
Hello so after last week first attept on recording myself playing one thing is sure and that is that my recording sounds too raw and not polished AT ALL compared to other peoples playing on youtube, so I was wondering does anyone know of videos that can show me how to get a "better recording"? I'm sorry but I'm too much of a newbie to understand half of what rnolan talks when he is making sugestions on EQ and other stuff and what I get I get lost on how to actually implement that on what I'm doing... so a good video on this will help a lot because I will see what he is talking about in the recording and what he is doing in the DAW, mixer, etc.

BTW the reason why I'm starting this is because I just saw this video in the Kramer forum and I wish I could record myself sounding like this!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi1iHDdE964 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi1iHDdE964)

I kown that that vídeo probably has some post recording work done but i've seen other youtube videos that the "supposibly" are direct to the DAW with nothing added after the recording that Sound really good too!
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: Systematic Chaos on June 15, 2015, 11:05:28 PM
I'm a big fan of Ola Englund´s YT-channel....check these out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WLhv0rId5k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maA1wGBX7ag

Also, try doing your guitar track as 4 tracks, panned 100L-100R and 70L-70R
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: rnolan on June 16, 2015, 06:01:20 AM
Hey El, sorry if I confuse you in any way, just ask if I can explain it better  :wave: Please never be embarrassed about "raw" your tones were really good (well I really liked them). And hey, happy to help you through the process of makng a recording like the link (he's very good and great sound but IMO doable for you (given your clips so far)). I'm not across any video "how to" clips but I can talk you through it from audio engineering and guitar perspective.  You've already done some of the journey.

Ok first hurdle, backing track (need to make one, not play with a canned track ?, but use one to start ?)
The biggest "sonic" difference between your tone(s) and his was/is the FX, he's running quite a bit of (in time with the beat) delay and reverb.
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: El Chiguete on June 16, 2015, 09:12:07 AM
What I think is strange is that you either find videos on youtube on how to do/record extreme metal tones or clean/blues tones but there isnt a video on how to do classic metal recordings... anyway I think I will try now to back off the mic a bit, I only tested with the mic right in the grill, so I will test the mic backing it up 2 inches at a time untill 12 inches. Lets see how it goes.

Also yeha I recorded with no delay or reverb on my demos, I have to add those on my effects processor (not in the DAW!) and see how that goes for instrumental tracks... and also my guitar with the one piece maple neck is more bright for sure than the one on the link I posted.
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: DaveM on June 16, 2015, 11:31:42 AM
"Good" tone is sooooo subjective.

I record all of my guitars with either an SM-57 or a Sennheiser e609.  Even though the the 57 is ancient by today's standards, it's still a damn good microphone in my book. 

I have an old Genz Benz 112 loaded with a V30, with the speaker grill removed so i'm not restrained by a grill cloth. 

Learning to use microphones with a cab is an art in itself.  You have to find the sweet spot using YOUR ears.  I would recommend starting at the seam where the dustcap meets the cone, and work sideways towards the outer edge.  I would probably also start with the tip of the microphone about 6" away from the speaker.

The tone in that track you referenced was a bit polished, but not overdone by any means.  A touch of reverb and some compression can really sweeten up lead tones.  In your DAW, you could also cut/paste the lead track into another track, then pan each one 5 degrees to the left and right.  Then put a VERY short delay (say 5ms) on one of them to fatten it up a bit.  Though I prefer to use outboard gear for effects, it's probably best to record dry and use what you have in your DAW....so you don't have to keep re-recording stuff.

For rock/metal rhythm tracks, I agree with SC above in that it's best to have four separate rhythm tracks, each one recorded separately.  For distorted rhythm tracks to retain their "punch", I put the microphone extremely close to the the seam, usually 2" away. 

Close miking creates a very "fat" waveform in my DAW.  I'm a firm believer in "subtractive equalization", as I feel it's easier to subdue "unruly" frequencies vice attempting to boost something that was never there in the first place. 

It all starts with that relationship between the mike and the speaker, so make sure you create a nice healthy waveform to work with.....

...just my two cents.
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: rnolan on June 17, 2015, 08:58:38 AM
As DaveM says, the 57 is a great (and very versatile) mic. But we haven't talked about condenser recording mics yet (and while you may use a 57 in the studio (I do for snare for example), your more likely to use a high quality condenser if you can, or minimum a EV RE20 if you need a dynamic mic (because of spill with other instruments)) for guitar cabs (well that's my approach). I got some very nice results (and IMHO much better than 57) with a pair of Rode NT5s, I ran them through a tube preamp (TLA Ivory 5001) which takes off the "very" slight metalic edge the Rode (non tube) mics seem to have (not that that would hurt a guitar tone, may even help ?). Now these mics are designed to faithfully record acoustic things like string quartets, orchestras etc as a stereo pair so are very accurate. I ran them a little off axis (so the diaphragms weren't hit too hard, and I wasn't playing stage vol). They sounded really nice (I posted the clips, probably in MP2 area) and very faithful to what came out of the cabs. I had them about 4" out (there's a pic with the post IIRC)

You really just have to play around until it's the sound you want (and all these ideas are valid), as suggested by others, one way is to put your ear there and when you hear what you like, put the mic there (where your ear was) (or get someone to move the mic around while you listen through headphones (or in the studio, you do it from the control room and use a tie line into your rig in the studio).
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: Peter H. Boer on June 18, 2015, 07:43:40 AM
For distorted guitars I tend to go for a 2 mic option.
A SM57 or an Audix i5 slightly of center aimed at the cone, and a ribbon mic (in my case http://www.thomann.de/gb/the_tbone_rb100.htm (http://www.thomann.de/gb/the_tbone_rb100.htm) dead center.

Play around with the distance to get the phase correct (flip the phase switch on 1 channel, play low chord, move 1 mic closer and further away, find the spot where all the bass dissappears, then flip the phase on the channel back)

Now you can play with the tone by balancing the volume of the 2 channels.

For clean guitar I tend to go for the ribbon only, or for a combination of the ribbon with a condensor mic.

At mix time high pass the guitar (70Hz to 150 Hz depending on sources and tightness required)  and add a bass guitar to make the guitar sound phat  :banana-rock:
The tighter you want the sound to be, the less bass should be in the guitar sound. Let the low end be done by the bassguitar, which is by nature tighter on low frequencies (as well asthe equipment for bassguitar being more build for tight lows).

 O0

Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: rnolan on June 18, 2015, 07:57:33 AM
Hey Peter, great tips  :thumb-up: (although not all desks/I/O devices have a phase flip switch (all the better $$$ ones do) but the cheap fix is use a phase inverter adapter (or make one very short XLR male to female and switch pins 2 and 3 on one end)) and a well deserved plug for bass players LoL (and I totally agree), let the bass do its job. Which leads on to the whle layering of a mix kind of conversation  >:D
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: rabidgerry on June 24, 2015, 06:03:19 AM
Great tips here.

I personally don't think I will ever look back from DI recording.  Impulses have changed my recording life!!!  I can get any speaker in any position I want.

El, don't you have a Two Notes speaker sim?  That thing can load any impulse the same as my EPSI, surely you can get the polished sound you want this way?

I personally always like a bit of rawness, or room or ambience in my guitar.  When I layer 2 tracks up I normally get a big sound and it's pretty polished, well enough for me.  The latested thing I have started to do is then combine two tracks  with a third. So each of the two tracks is a seperate performance.  I pan these left and right.  Then I have another single stereo track of another performance.  I stick a subtle stereo chorus on it to widen it.  Then I mix this with the other two tracks and I'm getting classic heavy metal (the only metal in my opinion) no probs.

It has to be said though there are a thousand diffferent classic metal sounds.  I could name you 5 albums of the top of my head with different guitar sound.

I could even name 5 albums from the same band with 5 different classic metal sounds ahahahha  Judas Priest anyone?   :)

Another thing, do what you think sounds best, not what anyone else tells you
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: rnolan on June 24, 2015, 08:14:04 AM
Hey RG, one of the main reasons I'm not particularly interested in cloning is I have developed/created (whatever) "my tone", make your own sound (as you say  :thumb-up: ), keeping it analogue as much as you can has its benefits IMHO (but there are are many ways to approach it, and hey they are all valid..)
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: rabidgerry on June 24, 2015, 09:49:23 AM
oh yeah for sure!!  I could fool around with mics and actual cabs I have the gear to do it, but it's so much easier for me to do it at my home and cracking a good DI solution really has changed everything for me.  I don't think my DI sound sounds fake or too dry or anything else, they've really got me in the ballpark I want to be and in the comfort of my home studio.

If I had my rehearsal room next door to my house (which I don't)  you bet your ass I'd be micing cabs and spending hours and hours doing it and perfecting mic position and bleed elimination etc  I really love all that stuff and indeed I practice it with my band a practice every week for recording rehearsals.  But just in terms for results and practicality the DI route is the shit for me.

I dunno what would suit El best.  He has the two notes thing Torpedo cab (OR DID I IMAGINE THAT?).  If you want great impulses El give me a shout.  I have the redwirez entire suite!!  not saying where I got that from ahahaha :lol:

http://www.redwirez.com/
 (http://www.redwirez.com/)
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: rnolan on June 25, 2015, 05:58:50 AM
Hey RG absolutely  :thumb-up: go with what works for you in your situation, I'm a stickler for analogue all the way (if I can), but I get great results with the MP2 cab sim outs (open back 2 x 12 selected :thumb-up: ) direct into desk (and when I get it working again, had computer die  :facepalm: ). But whatever makes the tone you want is valid IMO and there are a number of ways to get there...
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: rabidgerry on June 25, 2015, 06:28:04 AM
at what point do you go from analogue to digital then?

Also what kind of tape do you record with and do you have reel to reel?  Just curious.  I remember one time you recommended that I actually record a mix to tape then transfer back to digital.  However I heard this is only benficial if you have decent big tape and not shit cassette as it's to narrow to hold great quaity so I never tried it.  Even read a guy saying to try it with vhs but I heard this is worse because the strip for audio on vhs is even smaller than cassette.
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: rnolan on June 25, 2015, 08:19:14 AM
Hey RG, very interesting discussion this one. The main part of the conversation is about granularity, (and this is about how and what you recorded it to (i.e. digital or tape and what format), what you do before that to create the "sound" is a different discussion.
OK so digital vs tape.. tape is still far superior if you have really good high quality tape. This is just plain physics, you have to go to Sony Super Audio to get anywhere near really good tape (but you also need the gear to really hear it (desk/amp/speakers etc)). Super Audio is 2Ghz serial (like mp3 on many many multiple steroids). It goes flat from 0 to 100khz (which is actually very important (if you care and have the preamp/amp and speakers to listen to it). A really good tape mastering machine running at 30" p/s (ips), will go out to 80khz. But your ears can't hear 80khz, no but you feel it, and sum and difference (physics) means 2 x 80khz makes a 40khz, makes a 20 khz makes a 10 khz etc so now you are hearing it (so (re)creates colours/spaces/energies etc very important (if you care)).
So back to granularity (how you slice and dice the signal).
Digital:
MP3 (various bit rates, serial, big loss off signal attack times), apple ACC much the same
Wav file (also apple AIF), container format, used for word based digital samples (e.g. CD qual = 44.1khz/(16 bit word to store sample)), 48 khz/24 bit word (much better dynamic range)

Tape is about speed, space and tape properties (how much room is there to store my sample/signal). Given that tape is made up of minute magnetic particles, it's always going to be better than most digital storage, but the more space the better, so cassette is the worst (1 second of music on 1 track = 1 & 7/8 ips x 1/64" (1/8" div by 4) so not much space (shits on MP3 IMO BTW)). But 1 second of music on 1/2" tape running at 30 IPS = 30" x 1/4" of space per stereo track, now you have to go to Sony SA to get anywhere close in digital terms.

So I'd like a 1" valve tape mastering machine (maybe a Studer?) probably with AMPEX 456 tape (the 406 and 407 were good but the 456 was the best top end). But I have speakers etc that will do it justice!
At the end of the day it's all horses for courses. If your target audience wants to listen through some crappy ear buds off their iPhone etc then mix for that medium.

Bouncing to tape (even hi quality cassette (like my Nakamichi)) is a better way of "dithering" than the digital algorithms (it's real and natural), it warms up the sound and does a better job, then re-sample at whatever bit rate/quality you need to turn it back into digital.

VHS audio is digital IIRC (I may be wrong) I do remember when VHS came with better (stereo) audio, it was better than "most" cassettes in it's day, but not better than the Nakamichi decks.

So bouncing to tape (if you have "really good" tape)  works well, adds warmth and is the BEST way to dither down or up.

At what point do you go from analogue to digital ? never if you don't have to (like you are going to make a single on vinyl  :whoohoo!: ) Though I'm all for "mixing in" digital gadgets (FXs delay/reverb etc) but keep the signal as analouge as you can (IMHO))
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: MarshallJMP on June 25, 2015, 01:38:18 PM
R is right about the tape.I also find it sounds better and warmer.A friend of mine has a 1" tascam taperecorder (and he uses 456 tape) and this sounds really GOOD.

BTW VHS was analog (it was invented in the early 70's)
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: rabidgerry on June 25, 2015, 03:09:55 PM
R is right about the tape.I also find it sounds better and warmer.A friend of mine has a 1" tascam taperecorder (and he uses 456 tape) and this sounds really GOOD.

BTW VHS was analog (it was invented in the early 70's)

Yeah VHS is so not digital. It has a narrow audio strip on it and the rest of it taken up for the visual.  So the outcome of recording onto vhs is not going to be better than a regular home use audio cassette.  Someone suggested using vhs but it's ludicrous.

 Digital video tape came about later, probably mid 80's because that is when digital audio tape came about.

Sure analogue is better, but I asked if Rnolan records to tape now and when does he bring it into the digital realm?

So he said never, does this mean you mix and master all on analogue?  Very interesting.

I mixed and mastered all on DAW, sent the digital file to record label, who then sent it to the vinyl pressing plant and then they will cut the vinyl from that.  I was specifically asked for a WAV file.  Not a tape.  When we released a cassette tape last year we were asked for a wav file also.

I don't disagree with any of the analogue argument, I just know that I don't need it to make a good sounding record.
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: El Chiguete on June 28, 2015, 09:01:49 PM
Wow a lot has been said since my last visit jeje. Yeha I have the Two Notes plugin and the day I need to go more in to IRs I will deffinetly write you... but for now I'm a little obsess with capturing my live sound even tho I don't get the chance to play live :(

BTW just so you can see that I'm totally in to what would be my live sound earlier this year I spend $300 bucks on a pair of speakers! If I would of gone the IR route I would spend that money on something else for sure.

Right now I've come to the conclusion that I'm getting a good sound from my rig and I have a few ideas on how to make it even more flexible, so stay toon on that! :)
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: rnolan on June 29, 2015, 04:08:20 AM
There were VHS players (or was it SVideo ?) which had stereo digital audio, we did a live recoding to one at a gig once (just used the audio) but the players were expensive and it didn't catch on that well. It was better than cassette IIRC. Then as RG says digital audio tape came out, not a huge take up, a bit in the audio industry ??. I have a Marantz DCC my dad left me, I haven't tried it yet. Storing digital on tape is no particular benefit these days as the main reason you'd use tape is coz you could store lots of data (back when hard drives were very expensive and USB wasn't thought of yet etc.). Then we got optical storage...

How I have been recording (at home, until my confuser shat itself last week) is via Ivory tube preamp, desk,  pro tools (DIGI 001) or MP2 (cab sims), desk, protools. So I use what I have and also what's convenient (while I'm an analogue die hard  :facepalm: I'm also pragmatic  :thumb-up: ).  The last studio recording I did we recorded to 16 track 2" (so better qual than 24 track 2" as more space per track) @ 30 ips, sampled them into digital to free the tracks up, then recorded more on the 16 track etc. But at home I've recorded from desk to protools (I use protools like a digital tape player) as in the Rain tracks I posted (little memory, Anchors Away etc.) and I'm reasonably happy with the sound.

@El, IMO your approach is very sensible, no matter what comes after (PA, Recording whatever), capturing the sound as well as you can (and what you like!) is what it's all about. All the rest of this conversation is about how you preserve it.

Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: rnolan on June 29, 2015, 04:15:53 AM
R is right about the tape.I also find it sounds better and warmer.A friend of mine has a 1" tascam taperecorder (and he uses 456 tape) and this sounds really GOOD.
The one downside of 456 is it's not (or wasn't back then) as robust as 406/407. So if you played it to often, the top end would start to degrade (where talking studio fussiness here). So you'd make a copy and do all your mixing on it, then do the final mix with the original tape.  Tape sounds great but is nowhere near as convenient as digital. But is a good tool, effect even if you like, to dither and smooth digital.
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: rabidgerry on June 29, 2015, 05:25:13 AM
There were VHS players (or was it SVideo ?) which had stereo digital audio, we did a live recoding to one at a gig once (just used the audio) but the players were expensive and it didn't catch on that well. It was better than cassette IIRC. Then as RG says digital audio tape came out, not a huge

well that's not vhs then and not the common vhs that people talk about when the mention vhs so it's predominantly analogue medium.
 read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHS
 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHS)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-VHS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-VHS)

It seems the thing you are talking about is not the same as vhs, or else not regular vhs.  So I think it's safe to call vhs an analogue medium.  It certainly was not digital on any vhs quipment I used from 1989 until now because the vhs player (yes I still have one) I have now which I bought about 10 years ago doesn't have digital either.

I worked in a tv station for a while and they had all these range of digital video formats that looked like vhs but the were the same shit as they talk about in that wiki link I posted.  Which is basically digital video tape and not VHS, not really.

Besides that it was a stupid idea for the guy to suggest recording onto  VHS tape to get analogue benefits because it would have been worse than regular audio cassette.

How I have been recording (at home, until my confuser shat itself last week) is via Ivory tube preamp, desk,  pro tools (DIGI 001) or MP2 (cab sims), desk, protools. So I use what I have and also what's convenient (while I'm an analogue die hard  :facepalm: I'm also pragmatic  :thumb-up: ). 

Sorry man this is a little bit  :facepalm:  You pledge so much allegiance to analogue but you don't actually use it yourself (to record onto)???  No recording to tape   :lol:  ?  So you use DAW like me and probably most of the world?  What is the point in advising anyone else to use tape then if you don't use it?


 
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: rnolan on June 29, 2015, 06:10:11 AM
Hey RG I'm pragmatic (like you). If I can do it analogue I do and will, I work with what I have and can afford. Most of my playing (except for clips for here) recently has been live, all analogue, we haven't been recording it just enjoying the now: that's what live is  :whoohoo!: (as I'm sure you know >:D )
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: rabidgerry on June 29, 2015, 06:22:12 AM
Hey RG I'm pragmatic (like you). If I can do it analogue I do and will, I work with what I have and can afford.

Hey man, of course practicalities and all that, but if it really, really, really mattered then you would use it.

And the point I'm trying to make here is it doesn't matter as long as it sounds good.  I find a lot of the "analogue die hard" s don't come across like that.


Most of my playing (except for clips for here) recently has been live, all analogue, we haven't been recording it just enjoying the now: that's what live is  :whoohoo!: (as I'm sure you know >:D )

So you're telling me you mixed and mastered all onto tape?  Or just recorded using tape? 

Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: rnolan on June 30, 2015, 05:42:11 AM
Hey RG, if I have analogue to hand, I'd definitely use it, particularly for the initial capture of the sound.  But I'm quite fond of digital FX gadgets. And the clip I posted of Reverends Rock in MP1 audio clips, is all analogue live to DAT and then I made a cassette of the DATs (good qual) then resampled (our engineer (good mate of mine) lost the DATs'  :facepalm: . So that's a hybrid mix (like so many are). But if you listen to that clip, you can maybe hear how the tape makes it more pleasing ? Though we don't have the original DAT to compare...

Hey at the end of the day it's whatever works, although the more analogue you can make you original inputs/sounds the better and then reproduce them as well as you can digitally (or analogue).
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: rabidgerry on July 01, 2015, 03:40:35 AM
Hey RG, if I have analogue to hand, I'd definitely use it, particularly for the initial capture of the sound.  But I'm quite fond of digital FX gadgets. And the clip I posted of Reverends Rock in MP1 audio clips, is all analogue live to DAT and then I made a cassette of the DATs (good qual) then resampled (our engineer (good mate of mine) lost the DATs'  :facepalm: . So that's a hybrid mix (like so many are). But if you listen to that clip, you can maybe hear how the tape makes it more pleasing ? Though we don't have the original DAT to compare...

Hey at the end of the day it's whatever works, although the more analogue you can make you original inputs/sounds the better and then reproduce them as well as you can digitally (or analogue).

It's just not flexible enough to make a record using all tape. The cost would be crazy. There is no point in me doing this since I use digital FX.  I am not about to sit and record take after take onto a tape machine then bring that into DAW and then try and capture drums onto tape then bring that into DAW, that's insanity in this day and age.

Off the beaten track here El apologies.
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: rnolan on July 01, 2015, 04:56:40 AM
Hey RG, IMO all the different approaches are valid, it depends what you have on hand and what you want to achieve with it. I angle toward analogue if I can, but my main focus would be in the initial capture of the sound, just better granularity (but only if you have really good analogue). Mixing in digital FX is fine. Recording through an analogue layer (to tape then sample) while being a bit more convoluted actually sounds very good. But it's just one technique of many.. IMO it's not insanity yet, A/D D/As are getting better, but very high qual tape does sound (and perform) better still, but how much do you/ should you care ??. To go to vinyl, I'd (personally) go the extra yards as high qual vinyl is better resolution than CD (if you have a decent stereo).
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: rabidgerry on July 01, 2015, 07:01:00 AM
Interesting,  I don't know anyone who works in a studio who records to high quality tape.

I know one guy with an analogue desk and most stuff is analogue he uses but I don't even think he records on tape.

I've already said before I submitted wav files to the record label because they asked for WAV files.  I also made a tape last year for another label and they asked for WAV files as well.  None of them asked for tape.  All asked for 32 bit wav.

So why put it on analogue format Gerry?  Simple answer, format snobbery.  The vast majority of metal heads prefer vinyl.  They will buy our single because it's on vinyl.  I don't care that it's on vinyl myself,  it's novelty, I only care that the music and mix is good and sounds good, I'm just making a tactical decision to release it on vinyl as I know its more likely to sell than had it been on cd.   I have released a cd before and it didn't do as well because of the snobbery.

What's funny is, they want an analogue format even though it came from a digital source.   :lol:

If it's not insanity to you then the next time you make a record you should be recording everything to tape and every take you do will have to go on tape and every one elses takes will have to go on another tape also untill you have a bunch of tapes you can mix together on one big tape!

I bet you wouldn't do it, I bet you 10AUD you'd never do that.

As I have said a few times now it makes no sense for me to introduce tape into my recording process, I record on a Hard disk recording unit and I bring it into DAW.  I would need to spend a stupid amount of money on some crazy multitrack tape machine that is probably gonna break down and need serviced constantly, and gonna be hard to get actual recording medium for it and parts.  Also then I would have to convert it to digital anyways, only to send it off to be converted back to analogue again.

If it wasn't for digital I wouldn't be making DIY records.
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: rnolan on July 02, 2015, 02:21:46 AM
Finding studios that still have multitrack tape available is becoming very hard.  Digital formats are very convenient and also don't suffer from being played too much. If I had to make a record and had access to the gear I would use it. I pretty much use protools like a digital tape machine, I don't copy or paste etc and I use destructive record and thus wipe each track, or use a new track if I want to keep the previous take (even though I don't have to as with no destructive record PT keeps all the takes). For DIY at home I use whatever I have, I try to keep the initial capture as good as I can like using the Ivory 5001 4 ch tube preamp.
Interesting the vinyl snobbery, good vinyl is nice but you need a decent system to play it on.  But I agree with you strategy.
Sometimes using good qual analogue from a digital source works well, like using a decent tape machine to dither between sample formats (often works better than dithering algorithms). Putting a 32bit WAV on high qual vinyl should potentially sound better than dithering to 44.1khz 16 bit CD
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: rabidgerry on July 02, 2015, 04:35:36 AM
Putting a 32bit WAV on high qual vinyl should potentially sound better than dithering to 44.1khz 16 bit CD

Really?  I didn't think there would be any difference in sound really from digital to digital.


I think if I had the means I probably would use a combination but I looked into it a while back it it's asking for trouble.  The maintenance alone would be a nightmare and trying to get someone to fix the machines when the break even more so.

Never heard of this before, destructive recording.  I don't record that was I just use my multitrack you see.  And I play the thing until I get it right and worst comes to the worst I splice with other takes usually.  I take a lot of takes because I can and I'm a perfectionist.  Recording is always like going back to school again.  I can't be raw and dirty like a live show.  It all has to be perfect as best I can get it.
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: rnolan on July 03, 2015, 12:33:46 AM
Hey RG (Really?  I didn't think there would be any difference in sound really from digital to digital.), this is why I crap on about it. You have to "dither" between different digital formats, typically throw bits into the bit bucket (in a slightly intelligent way). There are various dithering algorithms (e.g. MP3 where to rip a CD and then throw 80% of it away turning it into a MP3 file (MP3's have other issues to)). MP3 is a serial (streaming) format, WAV is a word based format (each sample is stored as a word (16 bit, 24bit, 32bit etc). The bigger the word (bit depth) the more dynamic range and finer granularity of each individual sample. While sample rates (44.1, 48, 96, 192 khz etc) make a difference (more samples more accurate), after 48 khz the bit depth make more difference. Hence 48k 24bit is a reasonable sample rate to use.  The least significant bit of a 24 bit sample is -144db (not really audible), the LSB of 16 bit you can hear.

So if you record at a decent sample/bit rate, then need to turn it into another format (e.g. CD) you have to dither it down and throw out detail.  Given the much higher granularity of high quality analogue (a decent mastering machine will go out to 80khz (not chop off at 20khz)), it's a way of doing the dithering more naturally and gives better results, but is much more hassle so depends how much you care.

The closest we get to a decent mastering machine in digital is sony super audio, it's serial like MP3 but samples at 2Ghz and goes flat to 100khz. MP3 sample at various rates, best the Lame codec does IIRC is ~356k and typical internet MP3s are 178k (or there abouts).
Destructive record is a protools option so when you record over a track it blows away the previous track a reuses the space (same as if you recoded on multitrack tape). If you don't select it, PT keeps each take as a separate file (takes more space) which you can recall if you want. When I started using PT, not only was I more familiar with tape, I also suffered a lack of fast disk space, I'd fill a 10,000RPM 10GB drive (very large for back then BTW) and then have to burn the files to CD to record new songs.
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: rabidgerry on July 03, 2015, 03:41:16 AM
I made that sound like I was surprised for the wrong reason.  Of course if you have low quality digital there will be a difference compared to high quality.  Like lower kpbs for an MP3 sound shit compared to an uncompressed wav.

What I am surprised at is that you say there would be a difference between sticking high quality digital onto high quality digital compared to  sticking it on vinyl.  Like a 32bit wav onto 16bit cd I have heard and noticed no deterioration.  Whereas a vinyl starts to introduce noise by its very nature of a needle being dragged across a piece of plastic.  No way in hell am I buying the fact that vinyl is going to replicate a digital source better than a clean playing digital format.

I mean it's really fighting over scraps, miniscule detectable amounts of difference here.  Example there is a big difference in a shitty recording and good recording.  But there is minimal difference over a good recording on a high quality format compared to another high quality format but with slightly less bit rate.  I'll even go as far as saying I don't think many people could tell the difference between a 320kbps MP3 compared with any WAV file.  I myself can only tell when it's like a 128kbps MP3 and even then 128kpbs is regarded as the lowest rate of MP3 that is not meant to sound any different hence that rate being the standard for many purchasable mp3 downloads.  Like they don't sell 98kbps downloads for example but will sell anywhere between 128 and 320 on amazon or band camp.

So because my multitrack a/d converts to 24bit but then it gets dithered down to 16bit in order to create a wav I'm losing quality right?  I bet you couldn't notice it.  This is seriously marginal shit that no one is really going to be aware off.


Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: rnolan on July 04, 2015, 04:24:45 AM
Hey RG, (What I am surprised at is that you say there would be a difference between sticking high quality digital onto high quality digital compared to  sticking it on vinyl) Well I didn't quite say/mean that, I don't consider CD qual (44.1 16bit) high quality digital, it's ok... and what it is. All the various audio formats are what they are. My passion or whatever is to get the most out them I can. So if I have a 192khz 24 bit WAV and I want to release it, I need to convert it into other formats, so for digital, one approach (that in my experience works well) is to record it to tape (as high qual as you can) then re-sample into the format you want (e.g. CD, MP3, ACC etc).
Really high qual vinyl is (if you have the gear (hiFi)) better (sonically) than CD (but no where near as convenient. (so does sound better) but yes we are splitting sticks here.
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: Slimjim on October 26, 2016, 02:44:19 AM
(Having trouble with the dates) (topic is +120 days old) (Great to see DaveM!)

In my opinion, I will not use the DI method any longer because it is not effective in reproducing the classic rock tones I am familiar with. I am not interested in the PC assistant, re-amping, modeling, or other methods, even if they are free, because I want to persue a genuine straight forward approach that equates 1:1 with engineers techniques that I read about. If they mic'd a speaker, I also want to follow their lead, rather than blaze new trails, conquer new ground, develop new tones based on my superior taste, because I am not reliable, my ears are dreadful, my judgement poor, my taste sucks. I might even be deaf. Well, tone deaf. Further, I am not smart enough or familiar enough with mastering and compression to say what will sound good across all mediums. If anything, I have learned a tremendous amount about failure. I know more about what doesn't work, than I know about what does work. For example, sitting at a bar, I would shamelessly swear up and down that DI and high gain don't belong in the same sentence and that preamps are by no means finished signal. You can have all the fun trying, though if you've got time to kill.

What we are familiar with, what we know and love, is not a preamp signal.

We know and love (A) hot power tubes, (B) barking speakers and (C) the strange sonic effect when sound bounces around. At the point of meeting these criteria, we have power and speaker, a close mic'd sm57 is going to completely miss part C of the equation. It can be captured with an alternative mic option, the room mic and mixed to taste.

A DI signal preamp tone is missing ABC, all of which can be simulated as mentioned earlier. But in my opinion, to find the satisfaction that elludes most home recordists, a focus on the equation is the alternative. Tube saturation and speaker bark with SM57 is a GREAT start, these dry signals simply need a little ambience mixed in. Check out the NICE digital reverbs from Bricasti and Eventide 2016. I use a similar method digital reverb but a bit less expensive multi effect outboard device, that can be run digital or analog source (providing DA conversion). Also, I am not loud. Due to mic preamps ability to amplify, I have those babies cranked up to +46db, so a pin drop becomes CRASHING. Coupled with a few blankets from the nearest couch, ANY time the mood strikes to lay down some audio is a good time. Everybody sleeping? Who cares.

Time to get loud is a great time to hear the additive color that tube saturation provides. A full compliment of Celestions a great reference and a great way to 'sound like' somebody else, change the speaker. Why buy an EQ when you really just need to adjust the microphone position by 2mm (1/8"). Having something to say like 'Its a Les Paul plugged into a Marshall head with Greenback speakers, recorded with SM57' is something MOST people can immediately identify with. That's a boatload of options, right there. EQ/mic position could literally change everything.

Ola plays 7 strings, that B note is not something amplifiers were designed around, and some speakers skip it altogether, creating one of the more worthless guitars on the planet. But not all. Some amps do catch that frequency and some speakers will reproduce it, but as a caution, not all.
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: Slimjim on October 26, 2016, 03:56:44 AM
... [cnt'd]

Effects! Where you plug in your effects does matter. If you are a junky, you will hardly ever use effects and do most things dry. Even those tremolo/reverbs that come on Fender amps, that have become BASICS would be shut off.

Bone dry is the root tone where you can actually hear the high frequencies as nature intended them. Because here after, our perceptions are about to change. Listening with effects on is like seeing with crying eyes, a blur. To properly determine the mic position on a Greenback versus the Vintage 30, you are listening to cut the cold sterile highs out of the V30, until it warms up without becoming muffled. Conversely, with the GB you may struggle to get the farts out and find smooth grind. Alnico Blue, similar search for clear brightness. Eminence also, both throaty and brittle, with a sweet spot.

Putting effects between the guitar/amp (in front of the MP1) is a time honored technique and for those who use pedals, the method rocks to limited extent. The dance, the dials, and the few relative results deterred most of us rack heads away from them 30 years ago, for multifx racks.

Here's where we shot ourselves in the foot. We put the effects between the preamp and power amp, as sort of a 'in loop' alternative. The problem here is source signal is now preamped, has an EQ stage and Gain stage so it becomes sizzling hot on its way to the power section. #1 it has buoyancy, it floats on an analog waveform that power tubes respond to. When a poweramp receives it, fluctuates those power tubes and speaker drivers in a special analog way. By placing multifx, digital at that, in front of the power tubes is essentially squaring off those waveforms.

Well then WTF? We can safely say that effects between pre and power are destructive, the only other option is after the speaker. The only way to place effects after the speaker is post process, using a Mic/Micpreamp. Basically, similar to being at the FOH board, creating a line out to your effects unit for Reverb and Delay.

At home, you have an even MORE ideal setting to do the coolest rigs ever, better than you could drag around town, without a crew. You can recreate any number of channels and use multi mike setups into multi input interfaces, and all of these dry. Dry because you can always modify later. In real time, the recordist creates a channel send (or 3) to the digital multi units. They will sound about 100x warmer, guaranteed.

Knowing this, watching Rush record Moving Pics, Pink Floyd record Dark side, it all makes much better sense. Sometimes you are in front, sometimes you are post process, but almost never in between.
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: MarshallJMP on October 26, 2016, 06:01:55 AM
Well SJ ,I almost agree 100%, a lot of recordings I hear these days are far from the warm and raw sounding recordings of the 70's and 80's. It's sounds almost unreal these days. I really like the live sound in a recording, nothing overly processed.

No 15 steps down tuned guitars for me either. Like you say it usually makes a mess of your sound down to a point you can't even distinguish the notes.
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: Slimjim on October 26, 2016, 07:34:59 AM
No wrong ways to record. Johan Segeborn cranked Plexi vid (from 2 weeks ago) gets great vibe from room mic, it another dimension, natural reverb. The close mic technique is great for many times, many things, and is great for manipulation, sent to effects etc but the room mic is such a plus. I haven't gotten that part yet!

Just received an unreal Ibanez 7 a few weeks back, its on the Jemsite, and it was love hate, all the way, at first. I was actually upset with its low fidelity sound, cursed the pickups and all. Then I switched speakers and it dropped bass and rattled windows... blew me away. Another one of those moments where you ask yourself, Now what am I doing wrong?
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: Harley Hexxe on October 26, 2016, 03:54:11 PM
That's a lot of information to take in, especially when I'm just waking up :lol:

     I'll have to go over all this a few times to get it straight in my mind, particularly since I'm trying to gear up for a new recording set up here at home. Every bit of this will eventually come in handy for me at some point.

    MJMP, check your inbox.

       Harley 8)
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: MarshallJMP on October 27, 2016, 01:10:08 PM
Well I do like Johan Segeborn's YT channel,he always can get a great sound out of those usually great vintage amps and cabs with just 2 mics.
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: rnolan on October 28, 2016, 08:09:02 AM
Hey Slimjim, egged on a little from your post...
Mmm the hard part is getting the effects after the main cabs..  Spent some brain hours on it last night (supposed to be sleeping to be fresh for work, well that didn't happen LoL). And some things tonight have influenced my thoughts (i.e. how f**king great a B200s sounds).
As in I have 3  (well more, but 3 I'd consider) poweramp choices (B200s, Carvin TS100, Carvin DCM200L) and a bunch of mics (2 x Rode NT5s, 1 x SM57, 1x EVRE320, 1 x Rode NT1, etc) and a couple of Behringer Eurorack UB2442 FX desks (and some other stuff..).
So I'm thinking:
MP2 L/R > desk, master L/R out > B200s > 2 x ADA slant split stacks (all good, dry (ish) sound  :thumb-up: ).  SM57 (L) and RE320 (R) close mic on each cab > desk > aux 1 & 2 > Tc MOne del/Rev > desk (assign return to sub groups 3/4 > TS100 > 2 x  Mesa 112 cabs, so just FX fed by close mic input, full wet).
Then mic the whole thing up (2 x Slant Split Stacks, 2 x Mesa P112 (12" with tweeter bass guit cabs)) with 2 x NT5s (not too close) and the NT1 backed off/up to pick up room ambiance. NT5s and NT1 into TLA Ivory tube preamp, > other desk > digital tape recorder(i.e. PC).  So that's my starting plan  >:D
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: Harley Hexxe on October 28, 2016, 04:34:09 PM
A parallel effects setup Richard,

    I like that for preserving the original guitar tone from the amp. I don't know that I would do all that mic'ing though for recording purposes. That sounds more like a set up for live mixing to FOH.
   Personally, I would just bring in the reverb/delay effect into the guitar mix to the desired level using two channels strips on the desk, which would keep the whole thing more transparent, and just mix the close/room mics at the dry guitar amp signal itself. I wouldn't even run the direct outs from the preamp to the desk, I would just use the mic'ed sound of the dry amp as the source to feed the effects so I could get the character of the power amp and speakers in the effects as well. I'd be interested in hearing your appraisal of how it works out with a different amp/speaker voice on the effects channels.

     Harley 8)
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: Slimjim on October 29, 2016, 02:49:38 AM
The manual I read for the Orville suggested how-to connect it. If you have a '68 Fender amp, you love the sounds, but have no effects loop. Their recommendation was mic the speaker and send that signal thru the effects (which sounded like a major pain). It took years for me to try it, but when I did...

I learned that Eventide designed their units around the source signal. Also that the source signal plays a major role in the processed sound. Unlike pedals. Pedals work with guitar signals, they work exceedingly well. The slap backs sound immense. But with a rack mounted unit, the echos and verbs are thin and tinny. Listen to what a guitar preamp outputs, and ah ha! Preamp signal is brittle, hot, and is this way because a poweramp thrives on it.

Always a skeptic, I was unsure of the digital preamps available built into recording interfaces. I was afraid because I had tried many times to make use of the MP-1 output signal... and failed to impress. So I figured I should invest in an analog mic pre. Well, I was wrong again, both analog and digital are good at hearing the speaker. Both sound believable. The analog let's you wooly up the sound with its transformers, but the effect is mild, almost indistinguishable.

Routings. I have three routers, and what complexities those bring. Router 1 is just for the guitar rig. You can patch things together in any way and store it. Router 2 is the interface. Eight ins & eight outs. Four of the ins are microphones. The other four ins are Orville signals. Outputs go back to router 1. Router 3 is the software channel mixer.

In software you will setup your channels. Channel 1 logically assigns to mic input one. Its a stereo channel, so I initially assumed it would feed it mic 1 & 2. But let me stop right here and say how important it is to avoid stereo channels at first. Instead, setup ch1 as mono, with only 1 mic on it. 2, 3, 4 are the same way. They could all be stereo, but skip stereo for now. Mono, delivers a huge (both L&R) sound of one speaker. Channels 5 & 6 are stereo setups. To get an ISO (solo) of one speaker, you have to hard pan the channel. My software has a feature 'stereo separation' which needed analysis. It has the ability to put the mic 1 signal into L & R... not what I wanted. I wanted mic 1 on the left only, mic 2 on the right. Stereo channels need to be checked to see that this is happening proper, otherwise hard panning is ineffective. Adjusting 'stereo separation' feature to remove this effect was crucial.

(To explain further, duplicate paths are bad news and phase cancel themselves, drop volume, and skip certain frequencies. For example the D note is usually nice and loud, can disappear and become the weakest note.)

Using the stereo channels, I can pair mic 1 with mic 4, mic 2 with mic 3 as well as 1&2, 3&4. But to solo a speaker, mono ins work much better. If I solo a stereo channel, it comes out of Left or Right (and not both). It has half the volume, and doesn't translate near as well as a mono source playing out of both listen back monitors.

Now that the software is able to select microphones and sort them out properly, mono & stereo I next looked at the interface router. The outputs of the interface get sent back to router 1. But you can be selective here. By choosing the software source to be sent out, which ever channel is selected in software goes out the interface (router 2) outputs to router 1 input. This means the mic 1&4, or 1&2, or 2&3, or 3&4, or mono 1, mono 2, or mono 3, or mono 4 can be 'sent'.

Router 1 receives the signal as selected in software (router 3). This is my guitar rig. This is patched into the effects inputs. Now the effects are based off of microphone source signals. Not only that, but each mic is on a different speaker, and effects are based on that specific speaker. This let me listen to a 6L6 tube/Vintage 30 as paired with EL84 tube/Alnico Blue thru a stereo delay. Each slap back accurately represents the V/Blue combination. It is shockingly accurate. Plus, signal degradation is present (this is what I want from a stereo delay, each repeat should degrade slightly, to simulate analog tape echo degradation). The digital world differs from analog, because things do not degrade. So nicely built delay algorithms will have filters on the repeats so they progressively degrade, simulating analog. Of course it can get seriously complex, modulators, pitch shifters are also possible, but speaking of basic digital delays, you really want to hear degradation.

How about the rest of the patches? Does everything improve? Well, this is subjective territory. Reverbs are now based off very warm speakers, and they sound thick. So Reverb can instead develop a thunderous ominous hue, dark and dense. The near/far feature of Reverb can be a bit harder to detect audibly (where am I?) but is completely realistic in feel. So often I listen to Johan recording his Plexi amp at full throttle. A close mic speaker doesn't really sound like it is cranked, at all. It still just sounds like a Marshall. The Omni mic he blends in is what catches the whole 'in room' feel. Since I am a low volume recordist, I have developed a crutch for delays and reverbs to add this 'in room' feel. It is a simulation based off of the real speaker, however, and has a much more believable final impression, studio quality to it.

My initial recommendation was Bricasti/Eventide Reverb 2016 (or software plugins) because they have a selection of rooms, spaces, and positions that recreate what a room mic is capturing. It hears a lot of garbage, and is not usuable alone, you still need the close mic to define the 'in your face' guitar.

Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: Harley Hexxe on October 29, 2016, 04:57:42 AM
   I've always loved Eventide's Modulation, Pitch, and Delay effects. a lot of those are very high end and usable effects, but I can spot Eventide's Reverb a mile away. The Reverbs in all the Eventides I've tried out have a dark, almost spooky quality to them, which is good if that's what you are looking for. Personally, I prefer to use my Lexicons for the Reverb effects, since those are much more transparent and natural sounding. I use my H-3000 for Pitch, Delay and some of the Chorus effects. Those are great when I want to fatten up my sound, and not just for guitar, it's extremely useful for vocals and drums too.

    Harley 8)
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: Slimjim on October 29, 2016, 06:15:45 AM
Put an expression pedal on the source signal so you can bring it down, because they soar I to garbage if you let them. Their most beloved 'Black Hole' is my least favorite. The newest Loneliness is my clear favorite. Trying to sound like someone, I use Stringroom, it is very small. I am trying to clarify my long post above... because early in this thread it is mentioned to lay down multiple performances..  something I refuse to embrace because of known phase cancellations and changes for the worse. To clear up the overall recording, I try to get the best source, send a duplicate out for effects and blend them back in software. The word Eventide is synonymous with over processed guitar, but in my application the forefront is the dry. The sends are super hot, but go thru the switch which is programmed with an expression control and the ranges are sometimes limited. You can blast the input, and get a blasted output. Subtle in, subtle out.  ???
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: Harley Hexxe on October 29, 2016, 11:54:38 AM
Hey Slimjim.

    It sounds like Orville is a very sensitive piece of gear. I'm not familiar with it though, since my hands-on experience is with Eventide's outboard processors. If the Orville is similar to the Lexicon Core 2, the plug-ins that come with it are very easy to over process with. and you have to apply them in very small blend ratios.
   I use basically the same set up you do for recording,(Guitar>Amp>Mic) into the desk, but I also run direct from the power amp via the Microcab II. I adjust that for phase cancellation, then I use Aux Sends to the effects processor, and run it back in to two channels strips that way. It's a great way to preserve a good track of guitar in case I want to try a different effect. Double and triple tracking guitar parts can really make things sound PHAT by itself.
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: Slimjim on October 31, 2016, 10:20:54 PM
That is awesome. After rereading my blather, I tried to deal with the stereo tracks, because hard panning was phase cancelling, and I found a submix (in the software) that crosses channels to create some "stereo effect". You know I have tried for a solid year to deal with stereo but I just gave up. I hard pan the mono tracks and there are far fewer anomalies. Mono is just one hundred times easier, although the Eve is still a stereo signal. These days, the kick is putting a different amp/speaker on each L/R. And it works great, as long as the 2 speakers get along.

Outboard gear, still hasn't deterred me to plug-ins. The Orville is the dual DSP that predates the H8000. Side A is a regular big box, but has the 86 sec stereo sampler. Such fun, I use it constantly on everything I do, but that occupies side A so only leaves B for the effect. My understanding is the H8 is the same way, with some new options to monolithic mode. I'm such a cheapskate I settle for the lowest price unit eBay had all year, Xmas day 2010. But Italo released an enhanced library for it, and had a load of goodies that were more useful than the factory patches. And that is it, no pedals, no wah yet, my flangers are very hard to implement, no chorus, most unrealistic sounds are gimmickey. What I really enjoy and use are the delays and reverbs, some new pitch shifters are so softly burried into the mix they are adorable. Some drop pitch and thunder, I love the -2400 pitch changer effects. So the patches themselves are complex, the modulated delays, comb filters... I love those. Very rich and robust.

I am setup, so I just need to press record. You'd be surprised how seldom that happens. I have laid out the sampler track, its looping and I'm happy jamming away but I just go right to the next sample and switch it up... never recording the idea or jam. Hopefully soon.

Strange as it may sound, new strings are always a good time to record. Intonated instruments just sound incredible. Dunlop 65 Lemon Oil, Polish, and String Glide and those guitars will beg for attention.
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: Dante on November 02, 2016, 08:15:35 AM
Well, all that was a good read  :lol:  I went through two cups of coffee  :o

Forgive my confusion, but thanks for all the info!! You guys bring up a very good point about where FX lie within the signal chain (between the pre and power amp) and that makes me want to try rearranging things for some experiments. Into the laboratory I go mMuhuahaha  >:D
Title: Re: tips for polishing guitar recordings (hopefully on video)
Post by: MarshallJMP on November 02, 2016, 02:36:53 PM
Well I needed 3  ;D

You bring up some good points and ideas SJ, keep up the good work.