What you record isn't what you hear

[fiaj]

*mics not miss

[bclaire]

My two cents:

I was using speaker emulators live for a while- and I found that what I "thought" I was hearing wasn't what the amp actually sounded like. We don't have ears in our knees after all! I started playing around with good headphones, a recording interface, and the speaker emulator to adjust my tone. It was a pretty eye-opening experience... or maybe ear-opening!

The same thing could be done with a mic in front of an amp and good phones I suppose...

[DiabloS]

Dismiss amp simulation straight away. PODs suck, yeah they give you variation but NOTHING sounds like a real amp.
The only mic i own at the moment is a SM57 and the most accurate representation of the sound i can get is an inch away from the speaker, just inside the cone by just under an inch. I studied engineering and production in college but i disagree with a lot of what they teach you. Things like what someone said above about how studio engineers know that all you need is mids... what a lot of sh*t!
Maybe if you're in a crappy metal band or an indie band or something and you just want to "stand out in a recording" and aren't too bothered about the detail of your sound. One thing i have learnt so far is that most (or a lot) of engineers are idiots who do not understand the dynamics of music. I hate them, and i hate sound men. They always think they know how to make you sound great. I always use two miss for accurate guitar recording.
I use an SM-57 positioned as above to pick up the pure speaker tone, but doing this (as is common practice) means that as you say you don't record what you hear. Your ears are picking up the resonance of the whole room and everything that reflects the sound within that space, an SM57 right up to a speaker is picking up the direct speaker sound in that exact position and nothing else. So ideally you want about 4 or 5 mics placed in different positions such as the room corners and everything to get all the natural reverb of your recording space. But that is a bit much. I use two, the 57 and i also use the best condenser i can borrow to place about 1.5-2 feet back and pretty central to the amp to capture the surrounding air. This is the best method for recording realistic room tone without using loads of mics. Most sound men and engineers will tell you not to use condensers for guitar, but that's because they are idiots who say things like all you need to capture are the mids. Everyone has different needs for recording but if you really want to record what you hear, borrow a condenser!

Hateful much? Anyways, the OP said "Been trying to record myself lately, mainly for practice purposes", yeah I understand POD's aren't the same as the real thing, but they have their place as a convenient way to get good enough recordings without having to worry about mic placement, etc. It's pretty much a decent tone out of the box if you know at all how to tweak it.

From what I read, I understood that he just wants to jam along to rhythm tracks and isn't getting a good sound out of what he's tried so far. It's possible to get decent sounds without getting overly complicated and using several mics, just saying.

[Les Paul Lover]

Dismiss amp simulation straight away. PODs suck, yeah they give you variation but NOTHING sounds like a real amp.
The only mic i own at the moment is a SM57 and the most accurate representation of the sound i can get is an inch away from the speaker, just inside the cone by just under an inch. I studied engineering and production in college but i disagree with a lot of what they teach you. Things like what someone said above about how studio engineers know that all you need is mids... what a lot of sh*t!
Maybe if you're in a crappy metal band or an indie band or something and you just want to "stand out in a recording" and aren't too bothered about the detail of your sound. One thing i have learnt so far is that most (or a lot) of engineers are idiots who do not understand the dynamics of music. I hate them, and i hate sound men. They always think they know how to make you sound great. I always use two miss for accurate guitar recording.
I use an SM-57 positioned as above to pick up the pure speaker tone, but doing this (as is common practice) means that as you say you don't record what you hear. Your ears are picking up the resonance of the whole room and everything that reflects the sound within that space, an SM57 right up to a speaker is picking up the direct speaker sound in that exact position and nothing else. So ideally you want about 4 or 5 mics placed in different positions such as the room corners and everything to get all the natural reverb of your recording space. But that is a bit much. I use two, the 57 and i also use the best condenser i can borrow to place about 1.5-2 feet back and pretty central to the amp to capture the surrounding air. This is the best method for recording realistic room tone without using loads of mics. Most sound men and engineers will tell you not to use condensers for guitar, but that's because they are idiots who say things like all you need to capture are the mids. Everyone has different needs for recording but if you really want to record what you hear, borrow a condenser!

Hateful much? Anyways, the OP said "Been trying to record myself lately, mainly for practice purposes", yeah I understand POD's aren't the same as the real thing, but they have their place as a convenient way to get good enough recordings without having to worry about mic placement, etc. It's pretty much a decent tone out of the box if you know at all how to tweak it.

From what I read, I understood that he just wants to jam along to rhythm tracks and isn't getting a good sound out of what he's tried so far. It's possible to get decent sounds without getting overly complicated and using several mics, just saying.

Both are decent advice - i did play around with sansamp and did have a lot of fun, but they aren't my Oranges - that's why i looked for a SM57.

The funny thing is that the overdriven rythms I recorded aren't always crappy, though some have been. Some have been excellent too.

I really enjoy the process of recording my amps and learning what works and not too, it's all new and plenty fun.


I'll have to play with mic placement and EQ and see what works and not - learmt loads of tips here, thank you!


Oddly - or not - on the few times i used the AD5 to record with, the results were excellent... And that one hasn't got too much low end!

[jason41224]

totally disagree with whoever said that mids aren't all you need in a recording. if you don't cut bass (and maybe some treble) from your setup, surely the engineer is going to do it later on (perhaps when you're not around to get offended ). also, in a studio i've never heard that it's a bad idea to record guitars with condensors...when i recorded we always did a three mic pattern: a 57 on the left speaker, a condensor of some sort (our only expensive mic, a freakin' nice Nuemann) and an MXL to capture the room. sounded great. and yes, we cut bass and treble because after recording, we found it didn't sit too well in the mix. but the detail still helps.

[baytamusic]

It's very common practice to low pass guitars somewhere under 100hz, usually around 40-60. There's junk down there you don't want in a recording, period, no matter what kind of music you play...

[baytamusic]

I meant high pass not low pass. I'm tired.

[a.hun]

totally disagree with whoever said that mids aren't all you need in a recording. if you don't cut bass (and maybe some treble) from your setup, surely the engineer is going to do it later on...

...and yes, we cut bass and treble because after recording, we found it didn't sit too well in the mix. but the detail still helps.

Well thats exactly what I was talking about...

Dismiss amp simulation straight away. PODs suck, yeah they give you variation but NOTHING sounds like a real amp.

I studied engineering and production in college but i disagree with a lot of what they teach you. Things like what someone said above about how studio engineers know that all you need is mids... what a lot of sh*t!

One thing i have learnt so far is that most (or a lot) of engineers are idiots who do not understand the dynamics of music. I hate them, and i hate sound men.

Most sound men and engineers will tell you not to use condensers for guitar, but that's because they are idiots who say things like all you need to capture are the mids. Everyone has different needs for recording but if you really want to record what you hear, borrow a condenser!

Hi fiaj.

Well you're pretty big on hating. Do you hate posting here too? Carry on like that and I'll definitely report your posts. Disagreeing here is fine. Telling people here (in this case me!) that they are talking sh*t isn't fine! It isn't what you say but how you say it...

FWIW if you read what I said again it was simply this:
Electric guitar in a mix is all about the midrange. I didn't say 'don't record anything else', simply not to be surprised if what sounds good in the mix doesn't sound much like what came out of your amp when you hear it soloed out of the final mix. And guess what - it is as true today as when I discovered it decades back. No sh*t!

I could also extend it to say that electric guitar generally is mainly about the midrange. The less than full range frequency response of any electric guitar cab supports that. Treble content above 5-6kHz you could almost always hard filter and notice virtually no sonic difference in any band recording. Often you could take that down best part of a couple of kHz and still not mess too badly with the final sounds.

You can also usually cut the bass frequencies of guitar parts significantly after recording. If you don't you'll usually have a cruddy mix, and you certainly won't hear the guitar parts any better. Usually the exactly opposite - you'll lose much of the note definition - if that happens to be important to the particular sound.

FWIW I'm also a believer in using a condensor mic for micing up guitar cabs!
I have a Rode NTK that does it very well indeed, and since it can take SPLs up to 158dB I'll never get anywhere near its limits. I also like my trusty '58, which with the shield off sounds just like a '57. But once recorded any guitar part, like any other part, is (if / when needed!) subject to EQ. Sure the ideal is to get your mic position(s) right so you don't have to EQ anything again afterwards. That happens once in a blue moon in my experience if talking about a band recording so you are best to err on the side of having too much bass / treble 'on tape'. You can always cut frequencies, but you can't replace what isn't there.

BTW simply dismissing all amp modelling, digital or analogue, is dismissing some of the most useful tools to be found in many / most professional recording studios, and the arsenals of many professional musicians too. I have a number of 'real' amps, but sometimes the best solution involves using something different.

Oh and just so you know, I spent 7 years living on site at a friend's busy commercial recording studio in Scotland. So I'm not just plucking this sh*t out of thin air...

Andy.

[fiaj]

totally disagree with whoever said that mids aren't all you need in a recording. if you don't cut bass (and maybe some treble) from your setup, surely the engineer is going to do it later on...

...and yes, we cut bass and treble because after recording, we found it didn't sit too well in the mix. but the detail still helps.

Well thats exactly what I was talking about...

Dismiss amp simulation straight away. PODs suck, yeah they give you variation but NOTHING sounds like a real amp.

I studied engineering and production in college but i disagree with a lot of what they teach you. Things like what someone said above about how studio engineers know that all you need is mids... what a lot of sh*t!

One thing i have learnt so far is that most (or a lot) of engineers are idiots who do not understand the dynamics of music. I hate them, and i hate sound men.

Most sound men and engineers will tell you not to use condensers for guitar, but that's because they are idiots who say things like all you need to capture are the mids. Everyone has different needs for recording but if you really want to record what you hear, borrow a condenser!

Hi fiaj.

Well you're pretty big on hating. Do you hate posting here too? Carry on like that and I'll definitely report your posts. Disagreeing here is fine. Telling people here (in this case me!) that they are talking sh*t isn't fine! It isn't what you say but how you say it...

FWIW if you read what I said again it was simply this:
Electric guitar in a mix is all about the midrange. I didn't say 'don't record anything else', simply not to be surprised if what sounds good in the mix doesn't sound much like what came out of your amp when you hear it soloed out of the final mix. And guess what - it is as true today as when I discovered it decades back. No sh*t!

I could also extend it to say that electric guitar generally is mainly about the midrange. The less than full range frequency response of any electric guitar cab supports that. Treble content above 5-6kHz you could almost always hard filter and notice virtually no sonic difference in any band recording. Often you could take that down best part of a couple of kHz and still not mess too badly with the final sounds.

You can also usually cut the bass frequencies of guitar parts significantly after recording. If you don't you'll usually have a cruddy mix, and you certainly won't hear the guitar parts any better. Usually the exactly opposite - you'll lose much of the note definition - if that happens to be important to the particular sound.

FWIW I'm also a believer in using a condensor mic for micing up guitar cabs!
I have a Rode NTK that does it very well indeed, and since it can take SPLs up to 158dB I'll never get anywhere near its limits. I also like my trusty '58, which with the shield off sounds just like a '57. But once recorded any guitar part, like any other part, is (if / when needed!) subject to EQ. Sure the ideal is to get your mic position(s) right so you don't have to EQ anything again afterwards. That happens once in a blue moon in my experience if talking about a band recording so you are best to err on the side of having too much bass / treble 'on tape'. You can always cut frequencies, but you can't replace what isn't there.

BTW simply dismissing all amp modelling, digital or analogue, is dismissing some of the most useful tools to be found in many / most professional recording studios, and the arsenals of many professional musicians too. I have a number of 'real' amps, but sometimes the best solution involves using something different.

Oh and just so you know, I spent 7 years living on site at a friend's busy commercial recording studio in Scotland. So I'm not just plucking this sh*t out of thin air...

Andy.

You're right, sorry. I didn't mean to cause offence, it just brought out my past frustration with engineers and sound guys who have had extensive training but just have no understanding of how to mix different kinds of music.
Everyone has this formula that they believe must be the only one to follow and then act like nothing else is right. I've studied and recorded enough to understand the "advantages" of these techniques, but it all depends on what you record. A lot of musicians have no understanding of any of this and just do what their engineers and producers tell them and end up with recordings that sound like some sterile Rick Rubin rubbish because they follow the set rules.
I have NEVER had any trouble getting perfect mixes using multiple mics and i never EQ as a rule unless absolutely needed. I just spend more time getting the sound captured perfectly in the beginning and go from there. Sure, some instruments sharing frequency might give less separation in the mix but i don't think that is necessarily bad, it just depends what you want out of your recordings and a lot of us want a fuller spectrum and more room in their recordings. A lot of the time musicians want their mixes to sound like the band is in the room, in which case there would be less initial separation but i would never say any of it sounds cruddy. And i definitely disagree that cutting frequencies, whatever, is not noticeable. Even if it's a barely audible difference it affects the way your ears respond to the sound when you take anything away, it's things like that that i find most engineers don't understand. And all these subtle differences make a bigger difference to the whole, maybe more as an aural feeling than as noticeable sound but that means slightly different emotional response from the listener.
Again, i apologise for causing offence, it was not meant as a personal attack and when you read something on a screen it can be perceived in a different tone to how it was written. I am far from being a hater, i don't even reeaaaally hate engineers and sound men, i just get very annoyed with the arrogant ones who always believe they know more than you about how to mix your music. And your comment seemed like a very solid statement of supposed fact, the way i read it.
Anyway, no need to threaten people, if you said that i was full of sh*t for saying what i said i would not take it to heart and threaten to tell the teacher.
I hope you're not too much of a hater, i love you!

[baytamusic]

Maybe you don't believe in cutting frequencies but I challenge you to learn about common high pass and low pass filtering standards and also EQ notching and give it a try. Your mixes will sound better, clearer and have more punch. Room sound is something you should have control over IMO. You will find instruments sitting better, sounding clearer, etc. If you aren't high passing appropriately you are going to leave a mastering engineer with tough decisions to make and your low end is going to be a muddy, undefined mess. Maybe you can't actually hear 40hz on a guitar track, but start piling on multiple tracks with unneeded frequencies and you'll get mud down low and your bas drum will start getting lost. Also if you are going to press vinyl anything below 20hz basically needs to be gone. So, my point is, to retain the integrity of your mix after mastering it's best to learn about EQ filtering. If recording and mixing was as easy as set up a bunch of mics, record decent tracks, set levels in a mix and move on, then everyone who owned decent gear would be making commercial quality recordings. Also, it's much better to use subtractive EQ than additive.

[fiaj]

Maybe you don't believe in cutting frequencies but I challenge you to learn about common high pass and low pass filtering standards and also EQ notching and give it a try. Your mixes will sound better, clearer and have more punch. Room sound is something you should have control over IMO. You will find instruments sitting better, sounding clearer, etc. If you aren't high passing appropriately you are going to leave a mastering engineer with tough decisions to make and your low end is going to be a muddy, undefined mess. Maybe you can't actually hear 40hz on a guitar track, but start piling on multiple tracks with unneeded frequencies and you'll get mud down low and your bas drum will start getting lost. Also if you are going to press vinyl anything below 20hz basically needs to be gone. So, my point is, to retain the integrity of your mix after mastering it's best to learn about EQ filtering. If recording and mixing was as easy as set up a bunch of mics, record decent tracks, set levels in a mix and move on, then everyone who owned decent gear would be making commercial quality recordings. Also, it's much better to use subtractive EQ than additive.

That's exactly my problem, whether playing with the EQ makes your music sound "better" depends on what you want from your recording, the sound you capture in the first place, the style of music and a thousand other things. Hence i would never tell someone not to EQ and that it sounds better to keep it raw without knowing what they want from their music and what the original recording sounded like.
I have been to college and done a LOT of recordings that have had a lot of EQ work in the past, i'm not just saying this without reason, and i'm not saying that people shouldn't EQ. 90% of music i do these days is improvised doomy jazz and soundscape work and i always want as accurate and natural a representation of what i hear as i can get, i firmly believe from much experience that EQs won't get you a more realistic sound than carefully mic placement and a good blend of the room. So for the music i do, EQs do not make it sound better at all, even if it could help me get more definition between instruments.
My only beef is people trapping the unknowing in boxes by imposing factually rules of what sounds "better" because that is their opinion on the kind of music they record. EQing has its purpose, but for most of my stuff it won't help me get the thick roomy realism that i want to capture in my music. And i'm not going to worry about what's best for vinyl mastering as all my music is being digitally recorded and would therefor have no advantage on vinyl, i'd love to be able to record analogue but even if i did i don't think any mics i'd use pick-up frequencies below 20Hz anyway. I use a D112 for bass and that bottoms at 20.

I was simply trying to tell the poster not to just accept something as being what's best because someone says it is, and what may help him capture what he hears in the room. And to the poster, i really apologise for bringing any bad feelings to your post. Everything i said was written in an innocent way, i'm not one of those guys who wants to insult people and start online fights. Good luck with your recordings!

[a.hun]

You're right, sorry. I didn't mean to cause offence, it just brought out my past frustration with engineers and sound guys who have had extensive training but just have no understanding of how to mix different kinds of music.
Everyone has this formula that they believe must be the only one to follow and then act like nothing else is right...
...Again, i apologise for causing offence, it was not meant as a personal attack and when you read something on a screen it can be perceived in a different tone to how it was written. I am far from being a hater, i don't even reeaaaally hate engineers and sound men, i just get very annoyed with the arrogant ones who always believe they know more than you about how to mix your music. And your comment seemed like a very solid statement of supposed fact, the way i read it.
Anyway, no need to threaten people, if you said that i was full of sh*t for saying what i said i would not take it to heart and threaten to tell the teacher.
I hope you're not too much of a hater, i love you!

Hey, we're cool. I'm definitely not a hater and I can well understand your frustrations with people being locked into set ways of doing things. I find that frustrating* too. If you do a search here you'll find comments from me along these lines few times:

"No rules. If it works it works!"

(*Especially those live sound engineers who when mixing bands seem to think 'I've got a big PA and I'm going to use it', then proceed to ruin the sound of every band they 'mix' by pumping out huge amounts of sub bass. Give me a nice defined powerful bass sound instead of that 'pile of poop' anyday. I've played bass long enough in many enough different situations to know that - certain styles aside - powerful bass sounds usually have little to do with the frequencies near (or even below) the fundamental frequencies of the open strings. Ampeg showed that when they brought out the famous SVT 8x10 cabs which put out relatively little below 60 - 80Hz, yet still sound MASSIVE. Most of what you are hearing / feeling via a live SVT stack is actually harmonics of the fundamental frequencies. Bass shouldn't just be about mud. [/rant])

Anyway 'if it works, it works' applies to a lot of things, and for me a lot of the joys of music making and especially recording are trying different things out and to heck with preconceptions! Mic'ing techniques in particular are endlessly flexible, and while a lot of people do stick to the tried and tested and what they've found works best for them, really interesting engineers and producers are always open to trying new things. Sounds to me like you are probably someone with more interesing ideas than most, and that is good! I can also understand the joy of getting it right at source with careful mic positioning and minimal EQ thereafter. As I said that is the ideal situation. It means you know what you want and how it is going to work in the overall picture / 'sonic soundscape'.

Doesn't mean that what you are getting is in any way a 'natural sound' though. (Where is the real 'natural sound' to be found - 1" / 5" / middle of the room? Which balance of these and other mic positions? What is natural anyway with amplified instruments, or with any recording for that matter?)
Again all you are getting is a sound which 'works'!

Doesn't alter the fact though that often generalisations can be made, and can be useful. Doesn't mean they should be seen as hard and fast rules, set in stone. But often, especially when learning about new stuff, they can be helpful. What I was trying to get over to the OP was something specific I learned fairly early on - that a lot of guitarists are way too fixated on the wonderful sounds they are getting out of their amps with their favourite settings, and often surprised - resentful even - when their parts in the final mix don't sound exactly like that. Real differences are
1. That they aren't playing on their own, but in a band situation where what counts is the whole package, not just their own contribution. This applies equally both live and in the studio IMO.
2. Microphones work differently from human ears.

Good discussion. Hope I haven't killed it!

BTW The 'teacher' comment is actually pretty funny. You do realise that our esteemed moderator here is a teacher?


Andy.

[Ddjembe Mutombo]

When I produce guitars I do the following:

1) Amp in the control room, and cabinet in the live room.
2) SM57 placed perpendicular to the grill and only half inch away. Placed just outside the dustcap.
3) Nice preamps are nice, but not necessary. I've used MBox pres before and have got very usable sounds. Tube pre's below a grand are usually just a marketing ploy.
4) I double track rhythm and leads. Then I mix the doubles about 4.5dB to 6dB lower than the orginal.
5) I usually boost between 600Hz-850Hz and I boost between 3kHz-4kHz. I usually roll off everything below 120Hz. I might boost around 10 or 12kHz for some extra sizzle.
6) My doubled tracks are usually EQ'd with scooped mids and more treble. They are only there to fill in the gap between the left and right guitars. They are not there to sound pretty.
7) I compress all my guitar tracks and add some slight room reverb in proportion to the kit.

That's my personal style. Everyone has their own.

Remember that your guitars (when mixed properly) will probably sound thin/sterile/awkward when soloed. It's all about context. And the whole mix is your canvas. You have to make adjustments while looking at the whole picture.