The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Guitars for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
What caused this change in heavy guitar tones over the years? Condenser Microphones
Old 3rd July 2018
  #331
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DistortingJack View Post
I find your earlier description more accurate about the one song you yourself posted (as impressive as it is instrumentally) than the average Meshuggah song, that to me would fit the latter description better.

Such is music. Subjective.

Now let's be honest – any desire to hear music because it's evil-sounding, or heavy, or whatever, is inherently childish, and people over their teenage years really shouldn't still be at that stage in their life.

Oh Zappa is more than jaded by now. Deathly jaded, even.
I mean, it's definitely my opinion that it's fine that you think that, just to clear the air, but I believe that's partially because you're confusing the word 'evil' with the word 'angsty.' Insects sounds psychotic and babblingly nonsensical. It overrides the senses and irritates you and makes you feel bad.

Meshuggah just sounds angsty and contrived. In fact, I asked three random people at the Rockin Joe's I was just at (to their dismay) which of these songs sounded more childish and every one of them said the Meshuggah one. One even mentioned that they found Insects deeply disturbing. Sure, that's just four people's opinion, but I'm allowed to have one and so are they. And here it is. And I realize lots of people might VEHEMENTLY disagree with me. That's fine.

But, back to my perspective, angst is usually pretty juvenile.

I think music that actually evokes feelings of evil can be amazingly provocative and being able to listen to it and understand how much of this stuff exists within you is one of the most mature things an art consumer can possibly do. Most people are so afraid to confront the bad person within them, they won't let it happen.

When I say evil, I mean the kind of thing that makes people drone down children in Yemen, that makes a person order a nation to kill 3 million Jews and tell themselves they're doing the right thing every day, that makes Jeffrey Dahmer chop people up and put them into a refrigerator.

Evil is not an anime comic book clown that spends 3 hours on their face paint every day or a guy pretending to be a demon with spikes coming out of his head. That's what an immature person would think 'evil' is.

Regardless, it's hard to make art that tries to capture real horror (part of the reason why few people believe it exists), but when it does, it is actually ****ing scary and disturbing. It also takes a very advanced consumer to admit what it means. One thing it definitely isn't is childish. If I listen to the Rite of Spring on a gigantic sound system with the right conductor and orchestra I feel ****ing scared.

Getting back to the point, there is nothing about fuzzy scooped guitars that has anything to do with 'evil' in and of itself. I wouldn't even be surprised if these songs were recorded with strats (back then, not now), standard guitars etc and they just switched to crazy looking ones live (actually just found a video of Korn in the studio from 1996 and he's using a ****ing strat lmao). If a BC Rich sounded exactly like some fender, slipknot would still ****ing use it simply because it looks ridiculous. And if you plug a BC Rich into a tube amp you can still play the blues just fine even though it won't be "THE sound." Most of the guitar mutilation was done with overkill processing. They were mixing and engineering decisions.

The fact of the matter is that these people are marketing towards juveniles, their aesthetic proves it, and their instruments must be audible on the medium by which juveniles were then listening. That much is fairly objective, and thus it is way more plausible of an explanation for the recording and engineering decisions than what you're getting at. Especially because guitars that sounded 'fizzy' were sort of prevalent across all rock genre's around this era. Not just "evil" or "heavy" ones lol.

How about the kicks in this music? Do you really think there's something substantially to a kick that sounds like you're dribbling a basketball that sounds more evil than a thunderous one with a lot of low end? It's a floppy concept, the one you proposed.

This was the time period that people started to engineer for bad speakers to an extreme that they never really had approached before (and yes, I realize the concept had been around for many years).

For the record I was saying that by the time of that interview in 1984, Zappa is pretty ****ing jaded. Not that his attitude within it is a bad thing. It sure makes for some good humor. And it's hard to argue with his points there.
Old 3rd July 2018
  #332
Lives for gear
 
DistortingJack's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by untitled73 View Post
I mean, it's definitely my opinion that it's fine that you think that, just to clear the air, but I believe that's partially because you're confusing the word 'evil' with the word 'angsty.' Insects sounds psychotic and babblingly nonsensical. It overrides the senses and irritates you and makes you feel bad.

Meshuggah just sounds angsty and contrived. In fact, I asked three random people at the Rockin Joe's I was just at (to their dismay) which of these songs sounded more childish and every one of them said the Meshuggah one. One even mentioned that they found Insects deeply disturbing. Sure, that's just four people's opinion, but I'm allowed to have one and so are they. And here it is. And I realize lots of people might VEHEMENTLY disagree with me. That's fine.
I wouldn't trust anyone in Rockin Joe's about anything, let alone music taste, but, as I said, it's completely subjective.

Do note that I specifically was talking about the guitar tone since the beginning. 12-year-olds in 2001 thought drop tunings and scooped Mesas sounded more evil, what can I tell you.
Whatever music you're into and connect with emotionally is another story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by untitled73 View Post
But, back to my perspective, angst is usually pretty juvenile.
Feelings are juvenile. Age dulls and adds nuance, but (to my surprise) hateful 8-year old and a hateful 60-year old are pray to the same basic feeling.
[/QUOTE]

Quote:
Originally Posted by untitled73 View Post
When I say evil, I mean the kind of thing that makes people drone down children in Yemen, that makes a person order a nation to kill 3 million Jews and tell themselves they're doing the right thing every day, that makes Jeffrey Dahmer chop people up and put them into a refrigerator.

Evil is not an anime comic book clown that spends 3 hours on their face paint every day or a guy pretending to be a demon with spikes coming out of his head. That's what an immature person would think 'evil' is.
Look mate, I was in a thread about drug policy somewhere yesterday and someone brought up a video called Funky Town in which some drug cartel people took of someone being tortured to death. Just the very description is so horrible I wouldn't want to write it down here, and reading what just watching the video does to people makes you sit there and think seriously about life. It's hard to describe what being in the presence of true evil is like, but we're not talking about that here.

To be honest, music doesn't and cannot do that, because you know it's nothing real. In the end there is no way for your brain to detach itself from the fact it's just some dudes singing poetry on top of some noises made on a few bits of metal, wood, and plastic.

I don't think the song you posted is any better.

It's interesting to see the huge mindset change between 12-year-olds in 2000 and 12-year-olds nowadays. Children now are so jaded by the availability of porn and gore online that scary clowns are nothing but ridiculous, but the ridiculousness comes specifically from how abundantly obvious it is that they are fake. That the guys dressed in ugly masks aren't actually real psychopaths or monsters, and that it's all a bit silly to even pretend that they are. When you can go watch Funky Town, or the Chechen massacres, or any other true evil things in a couple of clicks, being "scary" or "evil" doesn't quite cut it.

What is happening is that children no longer feel the thrill that children of the '90s and '00s felt, and therefore, music no longer wishes to sound evil or scary. Metal has gone back underground, and nobody really is doing that anymore. It's done and dusted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by untitled73 View Post
It also takes a very advanced consumer to admit what it means. One thing it definitely isn't is childish. If I listen to the Rite of Spring on a gigantic sound system with the right conductor and orchestra I feel ****ing scared.
The Rite of Spring is a bit disturbing but it's not scary. It never was and never will. I actually was lucky enough to go watch it at the Théâtre des Champs-Elysées (I lived in France for quite a while) and while it has its jumps and its dissonant bits, I fail to see how or why you would think it's evil. Not even the story of it is. It's a dance.

Now, if we're going into classical music that is scary by design:



Quote:
Originally Posted by untitled73 View Post
Getting back to the point, there is nothing about fuzzy scooped guitars that has anything to do with 'evil' in and of itself.
I don't have the time to look into this, but there are sounds that are innately disturbing to people, both violent shrieks, which emulate pain and distress calls, and low-pitched sounds, which emulate large predators.

There are articles about it somewhere. I'll look 'em up.

Why Is Scary Music Scary? Here’s the Science | TIME.com
Old 3rd July 2018
  #333
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DistortingJack View Post
I wouldn't trust anyone in Rockin Joe's about anything, let alone music taste, but, as I said, it's completely subjective.

Do note that I specifically was talking about the guitar tone since the beginning. 12-year-olds in 2001 thought drop tunings and scooped Mesas sounded more evil, what can I tell you.
Whatever music you're into and connect with emotionally is another story.


Feelings are juvenile. Age dulls and adds nuance, but (to my surprise) hateful 8-year old and a hateful 60-year old are pray to the same basic feeling.




Look mate, I was in a thread about drug policy somewhere yesterday and someone brought up a video called Funky Town in which some drug cartel people took of someone being tortured to death. Just the very description is so horrible I wouldn't want to write it down here, and reading what just watching the video does to people makes you sit there and think seriously about life. It's hard to describe what being in the presence of true evil is like, but we're not talking about that here.

To be honest, music doesn't and cannot do that, because you know it's nothing real. In the end there is no way for your brain to detach itself from the fact it's just some dudes singing poetry on top of some noises made on a few bits of metal, wood, and plastic.

I don't think the song you posted is any better.

It's interesting to see the huge mindset change between 12-year-olds in 2000 and 12-year-olds nowadays. Children now are so jaded by the availability of porn and gore online that scary clowns are nothing but ridiculous, but the ridiculousness comes specifically from how abundantly obvious it is that they are fake. That the guys dressed in ugly masks aren't actually real psychopaths or monsters, and that it's all a bit silly to even pretend that they are. When you can go watch Funky Town, or the Chechen massacres, or any other true evil things in a couple of clicks, being "scary" or "evil" doesn't quite cut it.

What is happening is that children no longer feel the thrill that children of the '90s and '00s felt, and therefore, music no longer wishes to sound evil or scary. Metal has gone back underground, and nobody really is doing that anymore. It's done and dusted.



The Rite of Spring is a bit disturbing but it's not scary. It never was and never will. I actually was lucky enough to go watch it at the Théâtre des Champs-Elysées (I lived in France for quite a while) and while it has its jumps and its dissonant bits, I fail to see how or why you would think it's evil. Not even the story of it is. It's a dance.

Now, if we're going into classical music that is scary by design:





I don't have the time to look into this, but there are sounds that are innately disturbing to people, both violent shrieks, which emulate pain and distress calls, and low-pitched sounds, which emulate large predators.

There are articles about it somewhere. I'll look 'em up.

Why Is Scary Music Scary? Here’s the Science | TIME.com
[/QUOTE]

"To be honest, music doesn't and cannot do that, because you know it's nothing real."


Huh? So you don't think the point of music is to at least send some sort of gut level message to someone the best that they CAN? So music that gives you a happy feeling, can't ACTUALLY give you a happy feeling because it's not real? It's just sound?

Horrifying music that gives me a horrifying feeling can't ACTUALLY be doing that because it's not real?

This is bull****. You've just driveled on about subjectivity and how we all experience differently but now you're saying that the feelings I get when I listen to music aren't real.

Why are these feelings real? Because people felt them, and they wrote music that communicates those feelings using pathways that are hard wired into us. People wince at dissonance and they like consonance to remain, generally. This has been scientifically proven. Those are the tools that are used. The reason they are horrifying is because in the cases that I am horrified I am of the opinion that someone else (the writer) truly felt the way that the music is making me feel. I am connected with someone and it allows me to get something about them.

And if I can understand that, it means something about me. That I am capable of feeling that same horrible way. Maybe you're simply incapable of it. Which would be wonderful. Or maybe you just won't let yourself because you're insecure. Who knows. I don't really mean to get too deep, but this is how I feel about all forms of art that deal with such fine and microscopic adjustment of our raw experiences. Like painting and sound. They allow us to communicate in a primal way.

"Feelings are juvenile. Age dulls and adds nuance, but (to my surprise) hateful 8-year old and a hateful 60-year old are pray to the same basic feeling."

Feelings are juvenile? Feelings are everything. There's really not too much of a reason to exist without them. Ideally, laws are based upon them, the foundations of philosophies are too, and despite the fact that things are 'subjective' we're all mostly similar enough that we agree on a great number of these.

You're missing what I was saying. When we are analyzing these things and talking about them, that is much different than the actual properties of a human being at any given point in time. Someone can be hateful without even being aware of what "hateful" really means. It doesn't really matter what age they are. It is immature to like an aesthetic that has no bearing on peoples ACTUAL emotional experiences at all. And you have to be a really ****ty artist to actually accomplish such an aesthetic. Angst typically falls into this category, because due to the fact that it is defined by being unfocused, it likely doesn't actually have bearing on reality. Angsty art is immature art, because angsty art is full of idealized experiences in all the selfish ways that people don't really care to have them. Usually, in the way that young teenagers actual do. For example, many Young Teens THINK they hate their dad, but they really don't because it's likely they haven't felt actual hatred unless they happen to be particularly unfortunate. They think this because they are brooding about their situation. Brooding is contrived and cerebral. If you like immature art, that's fine. I just don't. It has it's own merits like any other.

We're talking about it, because we're discussing the intended feelings that an artist or a song is attempting to send us, and whether or not certain decisions were made to attempt to invoke those feelings. What's ironic is that if the writing process was anywhere near as cerebral as this discussion (and there are many reasons to believe it was), the resulting art would be useless.

My points being, that:

1. Music trying to be "evil" in a smiling clown demon slipknot way is most certainly that contrived, and not profound because no one ACTUALLY experiences that. That's why it's juvenile.

2. Music makes you feel things. If that's not how you feel, I can't imagine you're in the majority. Unless I'm just living in some weird ivory tower. And I would like to believe I go out of my way not to. Typically it's imagined pain which is associated with real experiences, or typically imagined comfort which is associated with real experiences.

3. People write music to communicate their feelings. If they're not actually experiencing the feelings, the music sucks, and it won't make anyone really feel anything.

4. There's nothing about a fizzy guitar that makes it "go with" the clown demon aesthetic aside from that engineering decisions were necessarily made, arbitrarily around the time that aesthetic was developed. All for the purpose of exploiting children (and I mean "exploit" in the marketing way, not like the oppressive way). Sure, that's subjective, but you'd maybe expect something about the distortion harmonics that would maybe be more dissonant, or whatever. SOME objective evidence maybe? That's just not there.

So that's why I think I'm on to something with my whole spiel, and that these weren't really aesthetic decisions.

PS: Yea, Rite of Spring is just a dance. But it's a dance about human sacrifice, and, in the very least, the music makes me feel very uncomfortable in a very interesting way. We're two different people, but I know I'm not the only person who feels this way. In fact, you may actually be the odd one I can't be sure for now though. But I'm curious and I'm going to try my best to find out.
Old 4th July 2018
  #334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weepit View Post
And you just named bands strictly from America. Talk about narrow.
Really?

I didn't notice any international qualifications placed. I would have mentioned Motorhead, but they're really a '70s band, as were many others I also didn't mention.

Quote:
Once again, the point was that many of the popular 80’s bands in the US wore hairspray. This is a fact. Not once did I say I liked them. You are seriously going to argue this?
Oh, so YOU'RE putting a narrow "US" restriction on?

Quote:
Do you post with clown makeup on?
No, I'll leave the "Insane Clown Posse" Juggalo stuff to you.

Quote:
I prefer your posts on Manning’s forum. That place is full of successful professionals and your demeanor is so different than here. You totally kiss a$$ there tech boy. I wonder why?
Maybe because there are few people here that are of the quality of the people there? And most of those still here don't post much anymore because of all the flak from people who don't know anything? And who hide their identities behind screen names....

I notice that you don't post there AT ALL - good move for you.

Quote:
You need some real life friends gramps. Jesus.
Not like you I don't. Got plenty of the other kind.

Last edited by John Eppstein; 4th July 2018 at 11:48 PM..
Old 4th July 2018
  #335
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrischoir View Post
Oh ... hmm who was that loser bass player from Nirvana...

oh yeah the "bald, washed up fat dude"

Some of us call people like that "adults."
Old 4th July 2018
  #336
Lives for gear
 
chrischoir's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
Some of us call people like that "adults."

take your issue up with gs member "weepit"

post #312

What caused this change in heavy guitar tones over the years?


I was responding to his rhetoric
Old 4th July 2018
  #337
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Oh, I mis-attributed the tastelessness. My bad.
Old 5th July 2018
  #338
I attribute it to people playing "follow the leader" while trying to outdo each other to be more "whatever". As I said, thrash punk had a strong influence in the mid-80s that continues to this day, and the whole (somewhat puerile) "music as an athletic sport" thing... Oh, and don't forget the "snobbier than thou" contingent.

What does any of this have to do with actually playing music? You know what you get if you cross an elephant with a rhinoceros?
Old 5th July 2018
  #339
Lives for gear
Iommi, Geezer, Ward.

Powerful, yet contrasted.

It’s Bill’s jazzy swing push/pull on an actual drum kit in a room, Geezer’s bubbling lava underneath, and Iommi’s sparse, simple, but sledgehammer heavy riffs coming together like some prehistoric monster crushing the earth in its wake.

Last edited by gravyface; 11th July 2018 at 12:53 PM..
Old 10th July 2018
  #340
Gear Maniac
 
skeeballcore's Avatar
 

Has anyone given OP a good answer yet other than arguing about what metal is or how it is or isn't evil?

I've wondered the same thing that the OP has and haven't found a good answer. I do think a good deal of it is the overuse of modelers these days and also a tendency to lean on ENGL and EVH 5150III amps which "play" very fast and work great for technical material but don't honestly just sound all that great (to me). But I've also heard them sound pretty good; Engl Savage on earlier Soilwork stuff and Necrophagist used the ENGL SE amps; and the band Extol used the EVH on their 2013 album and it sounded great but often they sound small in a mix.

I came upon OP's problem when I was recording some guitars to some material from the 90's trying to capture the vibe of that time. I had a mid-to-late-90's Dual Rectifier, not boosted, tube sag switched on, and turned up loud enough you needed earplugs in but still couldn't get that same feeling like the OP was talking about. It always sounded too present and I could never work the EQ or compression correctly to get that sound some have called "far away", tried some different mics and positions but couldn't quite "get there" so the guitars still felt pretty "demo" sounding to me.

Here's an example that has that "sheen" to it for me though I know it was a relatively low-budget affair. Recorded in a garage, most likely to ADAT on a cheaper board. Dual Rectifier and a Marshall Valvestate used for the amps. EMGs on both guitars. The only thing high end (and it could be what makes the difference) is that it was mastered at Grundman.



With that said, same place, same engineer,but now in Pro Tools, the song is great (IMO) but the guitar tone just doesn't have that same feeling. Also has Bernie Grundman mastering

Last edited by skeeballcore; 10th July 2018 at 07:18 PM..
Old 10th July 2018
  #341
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeeballcore View Post
Has anyone given OP a good answer yet other than arguing about what metal is or how it is or isn't evil?

I've wondered the same thing that the OP has and haven't found a good answer. I do think a good deal of it is the overuse of modelers these days and also a tendency to lean on ENGL and EVH 5150III amps which "play" very fast and work great for technical material but don't honestly just sound all that great (to me). But I've also heard them sound pretty good; Engl Savage on earlier Soilwork stuff and Necrophagist used the ENGL SE amps; and the band Extol used the EVH on their 2013 album and it sounded great but often they sound small in a mix.

I came upon OP's problem when I was recording some guitars to some material from the 90's trying to capture the vibe of that time. I had a mid-to-late-90's Dual Rectifier, not boosted, tube sag switched on, and turned up loud enough you needed earplugs in but still couldn't get that same feeling like the OP was talking about. It always sounded too present and I could never work the EQ or compression correctly to get that sound some have called "far away", tried some different mics and positions but couldn't quite "get there" so the guitars still felt pretty "demo" sounding to me.

Here's an example that has that "sheen" to it for me though I know it was a relatively low-budget affair. Recorded in a garage, most likely to ADAT on a cheaper board. Dual Rectifier and a Marshall Valvestate used for the amps. EMGs on both guitars. The only thing high end (and it could be what makes the difference) is that it was mastered at Grundman.



With that said, same place, same engineer,but now in Pro Tools, the song is great (IMO) but the guitar tone just doesn't have that same feeling. Also has Bernie Grundman mastering
I've said it several times in this thread, I guess once more won't hurt.

The major difference isn't technical, it's social/cultural.

The reason I say this is that I observed it happen. Part of it was the influence of thrash punk - mosh pit music. Part of it was the introduction of sp[eed metal based roughly6 on Motorhead, but not retaining Motorhead's heaviness, the differences being partly in arrangement and partly the the classic MH lineup retained a heavy bottom, especially in Phil Taylor's non-clicky kick drums. The "New Wave Of Heavy Metal" brought along with it some engineers who, in my opinion did not know how to produce a really heavy foundation for the music, especially a decent kick drum tone. This, and ther new found mania for speed (borrowed from thrash punk) and the de-emphasis on the ability top actually SING (also taken from thrash punk) were major factors in reshaping the sound. On a parallel track was the predominance of lead guitar as an athletic event, rather than as art or communication, coupled with the loss of understanding of the art of arrangement, which has accelerated with the demise of the old studio system.

You want to know why your "modern" band can't sound like a band from even as recent as the '90s? It's because ther can't play, write, or arrange like a band from the '90s (or before). It's because there is no producer, or the one that's there doesn't understand production or arrangement very well - or at all. You can't get the feel of the period if the music isn't structured like music from that period and they players don't FEEL like that period. You can't mix a souffle to taste like a meatloaf. Having "period correct" equipment won't really help. The gear isn't the problem. "Chasing tones" isn't the problem. That's all superficial.

And applying a whole pile of technical stuff to try to "fix" it won't help - it'll just make it worse.

I could continue, but that's enough for now.
Old 11th July 2018
  #342
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
... especially in Phil Taylor's non-clicky kick drums. The "New Wave Of Heavy Metal" brought along with it some engineers who, in my opinion did not know how to produce a really heavy foundation for the music, especially a decent kick drum tone.
Man, I cannot hold it in: Ozzmosis' kick drum sound is THE SOUND in my opinion. Just listen to Thunder Underground. I miss that tone.
Old 12th July 2018
  #343
Lives for gear
 
chrischoir's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Phil Taylor's non-clicky kick drums.
Issue with his kick drum is the same with all Jimmy Miller recordings, way too much low mid around the 400hz area. To be fair to Jimmy that is a natural sound and probably was intentional, however that still doesn't mean you shouldn't suck that cardboard out w/ a tight notch filter. IMO that cardboard sound is almost as bad as the clicky metal kicks.
Old 12th July 2018
  #344
Lives for gear
 
chrischoir's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skeeballcore View Post
This production is absolutely terrible. the song may even be good but I can't even listen for 3 seconds. The quality of sound matters way more than how heavy you are.
Old 14th July 2018
  #345
Gear Nut
 

I'm an old metal fuddy duddy and all, but I do think it's admirable that some of these kiddos nowadays know that their guitars have more than one pickup, and that the gain on their amps goes up AND down.
Old 14th July 2018
  #346
Lives for gear
 
DistortingJack's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arr0wHead View Post
I'm an old metal fuddy duddy and all, but I do think it's admirable that some of these kiddos nowadays know that their guitars have more than one pickup, and that the gain on their amps goes up AND down.
Lol I posted that like 2 pages ago and a guy said it made him want to puke.

The playing is amazing, the harmonic structure is super advanced and interesting, and I’d never hear music like that before. But I think just some people don’t get it, partly because they do t want to get it and they think they know better.

Music is such a weird world.
Old 15th July 2018
  #347
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by DistortingJack View Post
Music is such a weird world.
Yes, it is. I was curious what they did outside of the studio. Not impressed. Rather listen to some 'old guys'. Genre not important. Except Disco/EDM. Actually...I'd prefer Disco to that.

YouTube
Old 15th July 2018
  #348
Lives for gear
 
nyandres's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by onewire View Post
Yes, it is. I was curious what they did outside of the studio. Not impressed. Rather listen to some 'old guys'. Genre not important. Except Disco/EDM. Actually...I'd prefer Disco to that.

YouTube
They are good, but live, ...well there are other people like plini, jason richardson, some tesseract which actually pull it off live... tesseract is the best live sound i have ever heard..and they are tight as hell
Old 15th July 2018
  #349
Lives for gear
 
nyandres's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by onewire View Post
Yes, it is. I was curious what they did outside of the studio. Not impressed. Rather listen to some 'old guys'. Genre not important. Except Disco/EDM. Actually...I'd prefer Disco to that.

YouTube
They are good, but live, ...well there are other people like plini, jason richardson, some tesseract which actually pull it off live... tesseract is the best live sound i have ever heard..and they are tight as hell
Old 15th July 2018
  #350
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DistortingJack View Post
Lol I posted that like 2 pages ago and a guy said it made him want to puke.

The playing is amazing, the harmonic structure is super advanced and interesting, and I’d never hear music like that before.

Music is such a weird world.
I'm a big fan of "I've never heard anything like that before" music. Lately I've been on a huge Australian prog rock kick. There's something in the water over there. So many amazing bands.

Speaking of which, I'm a big fan of the guitar tones Forest Savell got on the Karnivool stuff he recorded. Nice layers, textures, and even with the heaviest tones you can really hear those guitar picks hitting each string. Love that stuff.




This is another one lately that I really dig the guitars. I just love heavy music where they dial back the gain, and add more notes to the chords... and with less gain there's more room for the bass and keys to blend in as well.

Old 15th July 2018
  #351
Lives for gear
 
chrischoir's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arr0wHead View Post

this isn't heavy but it sound good.
Old 15th July 2018
  #352
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrischoir View Post
this isn't heavy but it sound good.
Dunno. It's kinda heavy, when you consider what these guys' other gig is:

Old 2nd September 2018
  #353
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by HSLand View Post


The older ones below sound more produced, glossy, 'tucked in' and smooth. They aren't poking out and aren't right up in your face, even if it seems like they were recorded relatively dry. Here's a diverse mixture I just dug up:

The old ones are all different but they seem to all have that produced 'clear coat' on them. In fact, the whole mixes do too, now that I think of it.


What can I do to get my guitars like the old stuff? Not the tone itself, but you know, that more mellow sound I'm trying to describe. It's probably the entirety of the mixes though, since everything sounds better on the older stuff for me. It's probably an EQ thing since all of those newer sounds stick out like a sore thumb but the older stuff sounds more tucked in, even though they're probably just as dry as close-miked.
The fundamental difference is that old rock guitars were all recorded to tape. Modern ones are almost all recorded digitally, or recorded to tape and then dumped to digital (which still has an adverse effect). The only thing that digital really truly fails at recording is high gain electric guitar. Guitar music immediately began its decline right at the moment that digital recording became the norm. The two are not unrelated.

-MM
Old 4th September 2018
  #354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Moss View Post
The fundamental difference is that old rock guitars were all recorded to tape. Modern ones are almost all recorded digitally, or recorded to tape and then dumped to digital (which still has an adverse effect). The only thing that digital really truly fails at recording is high gain electric guitar. Guitar music immediately began its decline right at the moment that digital recording became the norm. The two are not unrelated.

-MM
Good point, although I'd say it's far from the "only thing".

And recording to tape and dumping to digital is pretty much the same - IF both your tape machine and your converters are of sufficient quality. Which I would not have said 5 years ago.
Old 6th September 2018
  #355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Moss View Post
Modern ones are almost all recorded digitally, or recorded to tape and then dumped to digital (which still has an adverse effect).
Which are?..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Moss View Post
Guitar music immediately began its decline right at the moment that digital recording became the norm. The two are not unrelated.
Based on?..

Old 6th September 2018
  #356
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orson Maxwell View Post
Which are?..

Based on?..

Tape does do something magically to the top end; I love what it does to tame cymbals and harsh fizz on high-gain/distorted guitars.
Old 6th September 2018
  #357
And does successive digitization "undoes" this magical something?
Old 6th September 2018
  #358
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orson Maxwell View Post
And does successive digitization "undoes" this magical something?
Not necessarily.
Old 7th September 2018
  #359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orson Maxwell View Post
And does successive digitization "undoes" this magical something?
In my experience, Using a Studer A800 MKIII as the capture machine and an Antelope Orion 32 as the digitization converter as the conversion engine there is no significant audible degradation. However in the case of earlier converter designs (such a my old Echo Layla 24/96 converters and most, if not all others of earlier generations this is not true. EMPHATICALLY not true.

Furthermore, recording first to digital and then using a tape machine as a "processor" does NOT undo the damage caused by the initial digitization.

This would tend to indicate that the digitization process, especially on older levels of processor technology, causes some sort of damage to the audio signal that cannot be undone.

Which is not surprising considering that various implementations of the digitization process all discard small amount of data that some "white coat" people have deemed to be "insignificant".

Obviously, it's not. EVERYTHING is significant to some degree. Everything makes a difference.
Old 7th September 2018
  #360
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
In my experience, Using a Studer A800 MKIII as the capture machine and an Antelope Orion 32 as the digitization converter as the conversion engine there is no significant audible degradation. However in the case of earlier converter designs (such a my old Echo Layla 24/96 converters and most, if not all others of earlier generations this is not true. EMPHATICALLY not true.

Furthermore, recording first to digital and then using a tape machine as a "processor" does NOT undo the damage caused by the initial digitization.

This would tend to indicate that the digitization process, especially on older levels of processor technology, causes some sort of damage to the audio signal that cannot be undone.

Which is not surprising considering that various implementations of the digitization process all discard small amount of data that some "white coat" people have deemed to be "insignificant".

Obviously, it's not. EVERYTHING is significant to some degree. Everything makes a difference.
Your Antelope Orion 32 also discards data -- that's what bandwidth limiting is. But it discards data that is well above the demonstrated thresholds of human hearing. That is fundamental to digital audio. But I'm quite sure you already know that.

If your Orion 32 is capable of satisfying your requirements, the problem or problems you perceive are then obviously not inherent to digital or can be mitigated adequately.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump