31 band eq clean guitar setting?

[deckard1]

Originally Posted by matt thomas

BTW. These are probably very good. I have bought some of Kenny's Pro Tools tutorials in the past, and they are excellent:

Reaper Training Videos

matt

Thanks Matt. I've been working with Reaper and the user's manual pretty much non-stop for the past couple of days. The trick is not to get overwhelmed by all of the info and possibilites. . .or, flexibility, as you stated in a previous post. Checked out the Reaper video links you suggested. . .they are indeed awesome. My only concern is if they are outdated. . .no? I assume version 4 applies to all version 4's. . .like 4.20, for example. . .which is the manual that I am studying from. Should this be of concern?

deckard1

[matt thomas]

Originally Posted by deckard1

Thanks Matt. I've been working with Reaper and the user's manual pretty much non-stop for the past couple of days. The trick is not to get overwhelmed by all of the info and possibilites. . .or, flexibility, as you stated in a previous post. Checked out the Reaper video links you suggested. . .they are indeed awesome. My only concern is if they are outdated. . .no? I assume version 4 applies to all version 4's. . .like 4.20, for example. . .which is the manual that I am studying from. Should this be of concern?

deckard1

not sure, because I don't know reaper.

Typically unless it jumps up a whole number, 3 to 4 for instance, it should be pretty similar. Even whole numbers are usually pretty similar

matt

[matt thomas]

Originally Posted by mlange

And Matt you are a prince - there's nothing but good words & solid advice throughout!

thanks

matt

[deckard1]

So what are the differences between balanced and unbalanced cables? Does it really make a difference? Which do you use and under what circumstances (i.e. instruments, monitors, etc.)? I never know which to buy.

Thanks.

[matt thomas]

Originally Posted by deckard1

So what are the differences between balanced and unbalanced cables? Does it really make a difference? Which do you use and under what circumstances (i.e. instruments, monitors, etc.)? I never know which to buy.

Thanks.

Used balanced if you have balanced connections, and unbalanced if they are unbalanced.

Your guitar will be unbalanced. Since your g-system is made for guitar inputs it is probably also unblanaced. Unless it has line ins on the back, they may be balanced, dunno. The only part of you system that might (but also might not ) be balanced is the output of your Sansamp, since this is meant to go to your recording gear, but look it up in the manual to check.

A balanced cable has an extra wire inside of it, it carries two copies of the signal, one in phase and one out, so that it can turn the out of phase one around again at the other end and cancel out any hum that the cable picked up. There are some cases where using an unbalanced cable where it is meant to be balanced will cause a level drop.

You can tell if it is a balanced cable by looking at the plug. It will either be an XLR, or a phono jack (like a guitar cable) with TWO stripes on it, an unblanced one only has one.



matt

[deckard1]

Great Pic!!

What if I just used balanced cables for everything. . .wouldn't that make it easier on myself?

[matt thomas]

Originally Posted by deckard1

Great Pic!!

What if I just used balanced cables for everything. . .wouldn't that make it easier on myself?

That will probably work, but there may be some rare occasion where one end of a balanced cable connects at part 2 in the top pic and one end and part 1 in the top pic at the other, this way the cable won't work, as both ends are meant to be connecting to part 1 in the bottom pic. I don't know if this ever happens in real life, possibly not.

Balanced cables are also more expensive (probably slightly heavier and less flexible too), and anyway you should learn how to use the proper cables properly. I think you should figure out what are the right ones and use them, so you learn how to do it properly (and don't look silly in front of a sound guy )

Everything that has guitar level going through it will be unbalanced, anything that has line level could be either.

matt

[deckard1]

Was just reading another thread in the newbie forum and a guy was talking about getting a power amp for his home DAW. What is the power amp for and why would one need something like that in addition to a preamp (i.e. Sansamp PSA 1.1) for only recording?

Love the Sansamp, by the way!! It has exceeded my expectations. Thanks for the suggestion.

[deckard1]

Originally Posted by matt thomas

Nah its not possible, although I have seen a program demoed that can do it, using pretty flash software, but I don't think its released yet.

Its not a simple thing to do, as any sound is blended with all the other sounds. You would have to predict all the harmonics and structure of the part you are trying to remove to be able to do it. I was amazed when I saw the demo of the software I mentioned above, I had thought that it was virtually impossible to achieve.

You can slightly remove vocals from some recordings in the way that a "karaoke" button on a home stereo works. The easiest way is to find an eq that has a Mid-Side mode (or MS mode), and remove some of the middle frequencies from the mid signal. This doesn't work very well, as it also removes lots of other stuff, and also leaves stuff, but it is a start. If you don't have an MS capable eq you can get a MS encoder/decoder plugin, and insert it before and after any eq that can control the left and right separately, and convert the signal from LR to MS, then eq out the mids in the left signal, then convert it from MS to LR.

Make sense? I'm guessing not. If it does, then you could figure out how to use this method to get rid of panned guitars too.

There are probably freeware VST plugins that work the same way.. I just googled, here's one: -/////-

You can also approach it with spectral editing. Izotope RX is great at this, although it is expensive. It can remove sounds from within other sounds. Although whole parts would be pushing your luck probably. Its more for little sounds, like a chair squeak or something.

Actually I did see a plugin recently that had a wee screen where you could highlight spectral parts of a mix and just play them, the demo was quite cool, although it was aimed at DJ's, but I can't remember what it was called. You could grab just the snare (in a filtered sounding way)

Long story short, you probably shouldn't worry about it, its not really a worthwhile thing to spend time on, and you won't get great results in the end, no matter how long you spend on it. Again its something that people who are starting out ask, and then realise that there isn't much point to it anyway, with the exception being DJ's doing remixes I suppose.

matt

What about something like this plugin from Waves for eliminating unwanted tracks from a song? Someone else referred me to this:

Center - Stereo Enhancer Plugin for Mastering | Waves

[songwoman]

I think some of these dudes might be putting you crook.

If you plug your guitar direct into the graphic, and there's plenty of gain, and the output isn't too noisy then you're all good. If it's noisy, roll off some of those bands over 8k.

Using the graphic to shape an interesting direct sound can sometime be just the trick. Keep in mind, many 60s/70s guitar sounds - especially in R n B and funk - were direct sounds with no amp in the path.

I would bring the guitar level up to line level with any kind of pre-amp, then into the graphic, play around with curves, then line level out into your converter/soundcard.

Check out guitar tones from the band Boston (more than a feeling) and also Motown guitar sounds. No amps involved. Just direct guitar.

[songwoman]

Originally Posted by songwoman

I think some of these dudes might be putting you crook.

If you plug your guitar direct into the graphic, and there's plenty of gain, and the output isn't too noisy then you're all good. If it's noisy, roll off some of those bands over 8k.

Using the graphic to shape an interesting direct sound can sometime be just the trick. Keep in mind, many 60s/70s guitar sounds - especially in R n B and funk - were direct sounds with no amp in the path.

I would bring the guitar level up to line level with any kind of pre-amp, then into the graphic, play around with curves, then line level out into your converter/soundcard.

Check out guitar tones from the band Boston (more than a feeling) and also Motown guitar sounds. No amps involved. Just direct guitar.

And for some really painful howling guitar sounds, try cutting everything and boost 800Hz. Sometimes it can be just what the doctor ordered!!

Experiment!

[matt thomas]

A Power amp is for putting before your speakers if you don't have active speakers. If you have active speakers (you do, otherwise you wold already be using a power amp) you have no need for one.

I don't know that Waves Center, and they quite vague about how it works, but I can't imagine it would be much different than using an MS EQ like I described above. I'm sure it probably does a bit more, but not that much.

There is a free Mid Side plugin from Brainworx they may do something, but don't set your hopes too high.

Matt

[songwoman]

Originally Posted by matt thomas

A Power amp is for putting before your speakers if you don't have active speakers. If you have active speakers you have no need for one.

I don't know that Waves Center, and they quite vague about how it works, but I can't imagine it would be much different than using an MS EQ like I described above. I'm sure it probably does a bit more, but not that much.

There is a free Mid Side encoder decoder from Brainworx.

Matt

Jeez Matt, the dude asked what he could do with a graphic EQ and a clean guitar sound, and you sent the guy out into a spiral of hard drives, plugins and MS EQs?

Why couldn't he just try and get a sound with what he said?

Does he actually have to BUY something to get jiggy with what he's got?

Would Brian Eno suggest that he needs to buy something, or would he just say "plug it in and see what it sounds like"? Hey I'm obviously not Brian Eno but....

I dunno about some of the advice on this site. Some of it seems anti-engineering.

Just my POV.

[matt thomas]

Originally Posted by songwoman

Jeez Matt, the dude asked what he could do with a graphic EQ and a clean guitar sound, and you sent the guy out into a spiral of hard drives, plugins and MS EQs?

Why couldn't he just try and get a sound with what he said?

Does he actually have to BUY something to get jiggy with what he's got?

Would Brian Eno suggest that he needs to buy something, or would he just say "plug it in and see what it sounds like"? Hey I'm obviously not Brian Eno but....

I dunno about some of the advice on this site. Some of it seems anti-engineering.

Just my POV.

Perhaps you should read the thread before commenting, it's clear you haven't.

Just for starters, you missed these bits on the first page:

Originally Posted by matt thomas

There are no real "rules" of what is right and wrong, so if the eq is doing something you like, then it is right

Originally Posted by matt thomas

Also, you don't NEED a sweep eq or whatever, most guitar amps for instance only have fixed frequencies for their boosts and cuts.

Originally Posted by matt thomas

Work with what you have, and if you need something new, you should get the feeling that you're missing whatever you need. Don't get something just because you want to buy something.

And I'm pretty sure Brian Eno would have said that his graphic eq was not the best solution to his problem, he would have recoginised that it is intended to be used with line level signals, not instruments, and not have withheld that information from someone keen to learn



matt

[songwoman]

Originally Posted by matt thomas

Perhaps you should read the thread before commenting

matt

Sorry Matt, did I miss something?

I am pretty tired..

[songwoman]

Originally Posted by matt thomas

Perhaps you should read the thread before commenting, it's clear you haven't.

matt

Ok, maybe I was wrong.

I'm just tired of reading threads where the answer is BUY SOMETHING..


This seems to be where this thread has ended up. I accept it's not all your fault.


PEACE

[songwoman]

Originally Posted by matt thomas

Perhaps you should read the thread before commenting, it's clear you haven't.

Just for starters, you missed these bits on the first page:







And I'm pretty sure Brian Eno would have said that his graphic eq was not the best solution to his problem, he would have recoginised that it is intended to be used with line level signals, not instruments, and not have withheld that information from someone keen to learn



matt

yes ok ok, I apologised and said I'm wrong.

[matt thomas]

Originally Posted by songwoman

yes ok ok, I apologised and said I'm wrong.

No worries, just a bit frustrating to see someone saying I am dong the opposite of what I have been.

matt

[deckard1]

Originally Posted by songwoman

Jeez Matt, the dude asked what he could do with a graphic EQ and a clean guitar sound, and you sent the guy out into a spiral of hard drives, plugins and MS EQs?

Why couldn't he just try and get a sound with what he said?

Does he actually have to BUY something to get jiggy with what he's got?

Would Brian Eno suggest that he needs to buy something, or would he just say "plug it in and see what it sounds like"? Hey I'm obviously not Brian Eno but....

I dunno about some of the advice on this site. Some of it seems anti-engineering.

Just my POV.

FYI, I am very happy with what Matt has suggested and am glad I bought what I did. Matt saved me a lot of money. . .as I was buying stuff anyways to build a little personal studio and he merely steered me in the right direction.

Lighten up.

[songwoman]

Originally Posted by deckard1

FYI, I am very happy with what Matt has suggested and am glad I bought what I did. Matt saved me a lot of money. . .as I was buying stuff anyways to build a little personal studio and he merely steered me in the right direction.

Lighten up.

Sorry. I thought from your first post that you'd got a graphic EQ and wanted to play around with some clean guitar sounds. The op was right when he said I hadn't read enough of the following pages.

My point was/is that you can do a lot with an electric guitar and a graphic EQ, even at line level. Many guitars and basses are hot enough to drive line level, and even if they aren't, a graphic EQ is a powerful waveform shaping machine. Play with it.

[deckard1]

Groove 3 tutorials "Reaper Explained" are exceptional!!

[matt thomas]

Thought they might be. I bought some of their pro tools ones a while back, not thinking I'll learn much new, but I got some great pieces of advice which are now core to my workflow.

matt

[rksguit]

Originally Posted by deckard1

Quick question: So how come when I use the equalizer, my guitar sound clips? Even if I turn down the gain on the eq, when I strum real hard my guitar sound breaks up. Very annnoying

D.I. guitar is always going to clip line in,you MUST turn down the volume on the guitar itself,and try to strike a happy medium between too thin,and not overloading the input on the recorder,I used to do it for years with an old Tascam 244 cassette 4 track.

RK

[matt thomas]

Originally Posted by rksguit

D.I. guitar is always going to clip line in,you MUST turn down the volume on the guitar itself,and try to strike a happy medium between too thin,and not overloading the input on the recorder,I used to do it for years with an old Tascam 244 cassette 4 track.

RK

I'm not sure what you mean by "DI guitar"

If you mean straight guitar, then you've got this backwards, normally instruments won't have anywhere enough to drive a line level input, and even if they do (some active guitars have very hot output, so its possible), they will have the wrong impedance to load the thing correctly.

If you mean a DI output, then with most DIs this is meant to go into a Mic inputs, so it won't clip a line in either.

If you have a DI that outputs line level, then you should get exactly the correct level, but if you have a DI that outputs +4 and you input it into a -10 input it will distort, perhaps this is what you mean.

Matt

[rksguit]

No I just meant a passive guitar signal,into a line in on a line level,yes there is often not enough signal,however I have great luck in turning the guitar volume down to get a modicum of tone as opposed to the blustering bottom of a humbucker guitar pickup sound.

RK

[deckard1]

Update:

Good news. . .I was able to return my Tascam DP-03 8 track digital portastudio yesterday and get a full refund from Guitar Center. You were right. . .the nice thing about big chain retailers is they have an excellent return policy. . .no questions asked. I love these little KRK Rokit studio monitors!! I couldn't resist, so I purchased two more monitors with the money giving me 4 monitors total. Love the effect of having 4 speakers as opposed to just 2, but, I don't know how to position them.

Question: What's the best way to position the 4 monitors? My little studio is in my second bedroom of my condo. The bedroom is approximately 60 square feet.

Thanks

[matt thomas]

Originally Posted by deckard1

Update:

Good news. . .I was able to return my Tascam DP-03 8 track digital portastudio yesterday and get a full refund from Guitar Center. You were right. . .the nice thing about big chain retailers is they have an excellent return policy. . .no questions asked. I love these little KRK Rokit studio monitors!! I couldn't resist, so I purchased two more monitors with the money giving me 4 monitors total. Love the effect of having 4 speakers as opposed to just 2, but, I don't know how to position them.

Question: What's the best way to position the 4 monitors? My little studio is in my second bedroom of my condo. The bedroom is approximately 60 square feet.

Thanks

You mean you have four of the same monitor?

Well, that's not normally a thing that you would do, so there's not a normal way of positioning them.

I think I said before, the point of having another pair of monitors would be to have two different pairs, so that you can listen (on only one pair at a time) and hear slightly different things on each.

If you like having four because you like ti filling the room, thats ok for you to listen to it, but its not a studio monitoring thing.

matt

[deckard1]

Originally Posted by matt thomas

You mean you have four of the same monitor?

Well, that's not normally a thing that you would do, so there's not a normal way of positioning them.

I think I said before, the point of having another pair of monitors would be to have two different pairs, so that you can listen (on only one pair at a time) and hear slightly different things on each.

If you like having four because you like ti filling the room, thats ok for you to listen to it, but its not a studio monitoring thing.

matt

Yeah, four of the same monitors. Your point is well taken, though. It just sounds better to me to have four instead of two. . .two in front of me and two behind me. The problem is. . .I have to put the two behind me on the floor. Will have to figure out a way to raise them if I can. That's why I was wondering if all the monitors should be at the same height, distance, etc. from where I am sitting, recording, mixing, listening, that is? I guess your saying that there is no conventional way to place them. . .wouldn't it be logical to place them at ear level? I honestly don't know. Don't professional studios have monitors all over the place. . .positioned at different places throughout the studio [i.e. "listening room"]?

I also use them to listen to conventional [i.e. commercial] music as well. So they are not solely for recording purposes. Kind of wanted the best of both worlds

Addicted to Reaper, BTW!!

[matt thomas]

Originally Posted by deckard1

Yeah, four of the same monitors. Your point is well taken, though. It just sounds better to me to have four instead of two. . .two in front of me and two behind me. The problem is. . .I have to put the two behind me on the floor. Will have to figure out a way to raise them if I can. That's why I was wondering if all the monitors should be at the same height, distance, etc. from where I am sitting, recording, mixing, listening, that is? I guess your saying that there is no conventional way to place them. . .wouldn't it be logical to place them at ear level? I honestly don't know.

I also use them to listen to conventional [i.e. commercial] music as well. So they are not solely for recording purposes. Kind of wanted the best of both worlds

Addicted to Reaper, BTW!!

Typically the tweeter in speakers should be around ear level. All speakers should also be equidistant from the listener.

Normally you only have two speakers, or in surround you have 5 speakers and a sub. ie. 5.1

In the 70's there was a time when they tried to bring out four speaker stereos, they called it "quadraphonic". Some recordings from then are made for this, but they are rare, and will be on some strange format.

Quadraphonic sound - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Matt

[deckard1]

Originally Posted by matt thomas

Typically the tweeter in speakers should be around ear level. All speakers should also be equidistant from the listener.

Normally you only have two speakers, or in surround you have 5 speakers and a sub. ie. 5.1

In the 70's there was a time when they tried to bring out four speaker stereos, they called it "quadraphonic". Some recordings from then are made for this, but they are rare, and will be on some strange format.

Quadraphonic sound - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Matt

Thanks. . .good read! I edited my previous post before you could read it. I basically added the question: don't professional studios have speakers all over the studio ["listening room"]? This seems only logical. . .the more speakers the better. Even if you have more than one of the same speaker outputting the same thing. . .if it's in a different position it has to only add to the overall sound. No? From what you said previously, it sounds like this isn't common practice. I think I understand what you're saying. . .for listening to music playback for pleasure having more than one of the same speaker outputting the same thing is nice. . .but for mixing and distinguishing your recordings. . .it is not necessary.

Sorry for the diatribe.