Help me improve my recorded tone.

ThePrettyDamned

I've posted this in the making music section, too, but I think it's more suited here.

I've got a close mic'd recording of a few riffs on the bandit - the first two are from a song I'm working on, the third was an on the spot idea.  

Anyway, in the room, it's a pretty great sound - not exactly a 5150 or an Engl, but it's a good sound.  However, my mate described this perfectly

"Sounds like your average amateur recording".  

So, how does one make it sound bigger, fatter, and (to some extent) 'louder' (sort of)?  Is it about mixing two recorded signals in stereo, maybe one in the room, one close mic?  Is it post processing?  Do I need more volume? Perhaps reamp the same signal with 2 different EQ settings and mix? 

I don't think it's just down to the amp, because I've heard worse recordings with mics of better amps.  Is it studio wizardry?

The good news is I can now use Reaper to a basic level - cropping tracks is no problem, and I quite like the interface, even though I'm probably using 1% of its potential.

#openedcanofworms?

PolarityMan

It sounds kinda like your getting volume fluctuation going on. Is the mic moving slightly?

Anyways I like quad tracking personally.

ThePrettyDamned

PolarityMan said:

It sounds kinda like your getting volume fluctuation going on. Is the mic moving slightly?

Anyways I like quad tracking personally.

It shouldn't be, it's clamped in place, but I'll check it out this afternoon.  If it is, it is very slight - I'm not standing on top of it or anything.  

I'll try some extra tracking as well.

Jez6345789

Hi 

would definitely try tracking 2 or 4 versions, I normally record a completely clean version either the same performance or a new one direct into the interface, I can then re-amp this using some of the more dynamic amps available as a plugin. 

Almost all commercial recordings we hear these days are never just a mic an amp and a good player. A friend of mine has all the expensive studio plugins and does commercial mixing and I was amazed at the difference all this stuff makes to a recorded sound in terms of taking it from a home recording into something more like a commercial album. 

Cost aside there are loads of good free or low cost plugins that can help.

ecc83

Sounds ok to me but then I am no judge! Suggestions from stuff I have read...

The level is fine for a single track if it is going into a mix, hitting about -12dBFS but when posted that will sound lower in level and "flat" compared to other tracks and commercial musics. You could bring it up to peak at say -2dBFS. I have no doubt Reaper has  "search for peak" facility in it? 

Add a whiff of reverb? Again Reaper will have an app'.

You might have a good sound in the room but that often does not translate to mic. Try monitoring the amp on headphones and move the mic about for best results. 

And, as always, visit the Aug 07 treatise on guitar recording in Sound on Sound.

Dave.

Ramirez

Hard to tell in isolation, but perhaps less gain and a touch more treble? It doesn't sound as though it would stand its ground in a mix (though I may be completely wrong), and that's often a result of too much gain. It just doesn't seem a very powerful sound - might it be sounding better in the room because it's louder? Louder always seems better and more exciting, so your ears may be tricking you*

*Not that you need to change the recording levels - you'd still need to bring the track to a suitable level while mixing. It's just that standing in a room with a loud amp always seems to sound better than listening back at a lower level!

But as said by others, layering is the way forward I'd say.

wayneirie

Try adding a cleaner part without the midcut to sit under. The original distorted part. Try moving the mic around. Distance equal depth etc. if recording multiple parts time align them.

ChrisMusic

Hey there TPD, I just put this discussion up here, basically two videos on Pete Thorn's studio.  Lots of interesting stuff on what he has built and how he uses it from a guitarists point of view.  Take a look.

http://thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/10586/pete-thorn-s-new-studio-and-recording-tips

Note the sound of the studio and live room on the video, it shows how boxy the ambient reflections are, in any small modern space, and how easily they can colour your sound when recording anything.  (ie. you know if someone is in the toilet when they call on the mobile, even without sound effects   )

This may apply to your current project, but will be a skill which will help in recording and gigging too.

Never loose track of the ambient room sound, either gigging or recording, or in mix or critical listening situations.  The acoustic panels in his live room cut a lot, but it is still there.  Early reflections carry a lot of energy and cause all sorts of phase colouration, which you can't really EQ out.  You may want to look at using stuff you already have to do a bit of acoustic deadening if you feel that is affecting your recorded tone.  (i.e. Fabrics and furnishings as they are free, if already to hand)

He describes phase quickly but quite well in video two, covering it in regard to mic placement.

Close miking kills most of the room sound, but then you have proximity effects, and the mic pickup pattern as well as some spill from room acoustics to take into account.

Do also note that using EQ introduces frequency dependant phase shifts, and can make things difficult to get to sound quite right.

It is not as simplistically intuitive as it seems.

(edit: just tidied things up a bit - hopefully)

chrispy108

I think there's too much gain, too much bass, not enough mid and treble. It's a bit fizzy and not powerful enough. Bass isn't power, mids is power.

What sounds good solo in the room, isn't the same as what works in a mix live or recording.

PolarityMan

ChrisMusic said:

Hey there TPD, I just put this discussion up here, basically two videos on Pete Thorn's studio.  Take a look.

http://thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/10586/pete-thorn-s-new-studio-and-recording-tips

Note the sound of the studio and live room on the video, it shows how boxy the ambient reflections are, in any small modern space, and how easily they can colour your sound when recording anything.  (ie. you know if someone is in the toilet when they call on the mobile, even without sound effects   )

Never loose track of the ambient room sound, either gigging or recording, or in mix or critical listening situations.  The acoustic panels in his live room cut a lot, but it is still there.  Early reflections cause all sorts of phase colouration, which you can't really EQ out.  You may want to look at using stuff you already have to do a bit of acoustic deadening if you feel that is affecting your recorded tone.  (i.e. Fabrics and furnishings as they are free, if already to hand)

He describes phase quickly but quite well in video two.  Close miking kills most of it, but then you have proximity effects, and the pickup pattern as well as some spill from room acoustics to take into account.

This is a pretty good point. I generally get a better result out of amp sims than mic'ing up in my bedroom style music room, mostly because my room has a really unfortunate resonating frequency around c# (guess what we tune to).

I also tend to contraversially like the sound of a mic about 6 inches back rather than on the grill (it just sounds more aggressive) sot he room has a much greater effect.

I didnt think you were over gained particualrly but when I quad track i tend to use one sound which is pretty gainy and trebbly and then the second sound with teh gain down a bit and more body. You can get pretty good results just quad tracking the same sound though as the biggest benefit is the tiny timing discrepancies (tiny enough that it still sounds tight of course).

ThePrettyDamned

The gain wasn't massive, certainly not that compressed - pick attack is a big deal.

But then again, that's the 'in the room' sound.  

Thanks for all the tips.  What I think I'll do tomorrow (day off, and mega man flu'd) is DI a track, then reamp it 2-4 times and layer with different EQ settings and mic positions.  Perhaps having one close mic sound and one further away will help give the big, aggressive sound I hear in person.  

I'll also try losing the bass some, and boosting the mids up.  Again, it's about translating what I would play like live into a recorded sound, which are pretty different things!

I have to admit, I am quite impressed - for a first go, it's better than anything I've ever managed with POD Farm.  But I feel like it's such a pale version of what I hear in the room.  

@ECC83, what's that peak thing?  Is that where you boost everything up to a level (sort of compression?).  

Thanks again, guys.  Top tips abound!

Ramirez

ThePrettyDamned said:

@ECC83, what's that peak thing?  Is that where you boost everything up to a level (sort of compression?).  

Thanks again, guys.  Top tips abound!

No, it's just about raising the overall level of the signal/file - no compression involved. It won't really matter when you're mixing, as you'll set the guitar to an appropriate level and then probably master the whole track for loudness. Raising the peak from -12dBFS to -2dBFS simpy removes 10dB of unused headroom (or boosts the signal by +10dB). It shouldn't change the sound at all, it merely 're-calibrates' it, for lack of a better word.

With layering and re-amping bear in mind, as somebody mentioned, that very slight timing/tuning differences between takes contribute a lot to the sound - simply re-amping the same performance a few times won't have quite the same effect (though it may well get you where you want!)

ThePrettyDamned

Ramirez said:

ThePrettyDamned said:

@ECC83, what's that peak thing?  Is that where you boost everything up to a level (sort of compression?).  

Thanks again, guys.  Top tips abound!

No, it's just about raising the overall level of the signal/file - no compression involved. It won't really matter when you're mixing, as you'll set the guitar to an appropriate level and then probably master the whole track for loudness. Raising the peak from -12dBFS to -2dBFS simpy removes 10dB of unused headroom (or boosts the signal by +10dB). It shouldn't change the sound at all, it merely 're-calibrates' it, for lack of a better word.

With layering and re-amping bear in mind, as somebody mentioned, that very slight timing/tuning differences between takes contribute a lot to the sound - simply re-amping the same performance a few times won't have quite the same effect (though it may well get you where you want!)

Hmm, that's a very good point - I'm a huge fan of Randy Rhoads' playing, and you can hear at times it's almost like a slapback where he double tracked.  I definitely don't want anything so obvious as that, but perhaps I could give multiple takes a go to see if the accidental mini mistakes add to the overall sound.  

Keep 'em coming!

Also, is that 'Normalizing'?  But yeah, if it's just raising the volume of the track by unused headroom, I could use a lil tutorial..

ThePrettyDamned

Also, I'm going to try getting some 10-48's and tuning UP a bit to drop D so it matches the bass.  My Jazzmaster is in flats, and sounds miles better for it, to be honest.  Besides, fast riffing gets you tons of 'behind the bridge' feedback, which sounds great for massive, fuzzy stuff but not so great for the tighter, power punk stuff I'm going for.

Ramirez

ThePrettyDamned said:

Also, is that 'Normalizing'?  But yeah, if it's just raising the volume of the track by unused headroom, I could use a lil tutorial..

Ayup, that's the one. Normalising to -2dBFS just removes that unused 10dB to bring it up from -12dBFS. 

dBFS incidentally is decibels referenced to 'digitial full scale'. 0dBFS being the point where digital audio will clip, as there is no more headroom for it to go, so everything is measured in reference to this, hence all levels being in the minus. It's a sensible idea to remove all unused headroom after mixing a track to get as close to 0dBFS as possible (though perhaps not quite to 0, as apparently some older CD players etc. don't like this). There isn't much point in bringing an individual instrument track up however, unless its recorded level is too low for you to comfortably mix with it. Modern digital systems have such a wide dynamic range that you can mix way below 0dBFS without worries - once the track is finished you can remove the excess headroom as it isn't needed anymore.

So really, all the above is irrelevant to your actual guitar sound! Double/triple/quad tracking, different tunings, different strings, different guitar, different amp settings could all work for you. And less is often more more with gain - a quad-tracked part with a slightly crunchy sound can often sound much heavier than a single high-gain part.

ecc83

I would like to just clarify my point about "normalizing" (tho I didn't actually say or mean that) .

When I listened to the track, the first thing that struck me was the low level COMPARED to almost everything else you get squirted at you on Youtube etc. So, if the OP is comparing HIS track with others he should do so at comparable levels. 

Yes, you want individual tracks at around -18dBFS otherwise when you start mixing you find you have "nowhere to go"!

I too thought the track was a bit lacking in treble but did not want to say because my hearing is WAY to bad to call it!

Dave.

ThePrettyDamned

Cool.

Well, I've just done one of my favourite practise methods (set a metronome beat at a random tempo and come up with riffs at said tempo) but with the gain turned down from 5 and a bit to just 4, which is really just 'crunchy'.  I then tried something that I reckon I might do tomorrow - played with the thrash button in (which takes out a huge chunk of mids) but maxing the mids, which gives a scooped sound but with some 'punch'.  If I combine that with a track that's really pushing the mids up with the full tone circuit in play, maybe it'll sound kinda cool.  

Maybe it won't.  

Anyway, you'll get another upload or two tomorrow with my findings.  So prepare your ears for bad timing, mis hits and generally shitty playing

ThePrettyDamned

Also, I tried pushing the treble up.  The in the room sound is pretty bright now, but again, maybe it'll translate nicer.  

wayneirie

Don't normalize stuff it never sound goods your levels want to be between -18dbfs and minus 12dbfs. Also use a hi pass filter at about 100hz. Especially if you are going to be adding bass and drums later. You want to leave room for kick, floor toms bass guitar etc. your goal should be to be able to push up the faders and it sound pretty good with no compression, eq etc. then think of all that as icing on the cake. If you want big metal guitars a lot of it is layers of varying dirt. Also don't pan things extreme left and right. You lose power pushing it hard left and right and it can sound unnatural and not work with some peoples setups. When you do get to mixing bus all four into a subgroup and try adding compression there instead of on the channel.

ThePrettyDamned

wayneirie said:

Don't normalize stuff it never sound goods your levels want to be between -18dbfs and minus 12dbfs. Also use a hi pass filter at about 100hz. Especially if you are going to be adding bass and drums later. You want to leave room for kick, floor toms bass guitar etc. your goal should be to be able to push up the faders and it sound pretty good with no compression, eq etc. then think of all that as icing on the cake. If you want big metal guitars a lot of it is layers of varying dirt. Also don't pan things extreme left and right. You lose power pushing it hard left and right.

The only stuff I plan on panning quite hard will be harmony parts.  

But cool, I won't bother normalizing until I'm at the mixing stage.  

What's a hi pass filter, why is it useful and how do I pop one on in Reaper?

NOOB ALERT

wayneirie

It'll be in the eq I should imagine, or hope it's basically a filter that takes out everything below a hundred hz. Look in the help section. It should have its own button. This helps with the clarity of your mix. 100hz and below is where you want your kick, bass, etc to live.