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
Guitar Amp Sounds Great But Records Poorly Dynamic Microphones
Old 15th February 2019
  #31
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by elegentdrum View Post
I have used many methods. But here is one to try that may help.

1. Get a mic, say a 57, going through headphones so you can hear the mic while you are placing it.

2. Have the amp and guitar up, but not playing, enough to hear the buzz in the amp. Place the mic where you hear the most buzz. This also happens to be where the good sound is....ie where the speaker is hot. 0" to 12" away from the speaker, where ever it sounds the best to you.

3. Turn the system back down, and listen to the one mic for a min while the amp is being played in a way typical for the desired track.

4. Pick a second mic of a another type, Ribbon, LDC tube, whatever you have. Put the new mic at 60% volume, and the existing mic at 40% volume. Now place the second mic.......could be fricking anywhere....behind the amp, 20' in front, right next to the to the other mic.....listen as you place it.

If you don't like it, move the amp, try it again. Pick another pair of mic's try it again. Change the strings on the guitar, try it again. Change out the stomp box's, try it again, change out the guitar player, try it again...you get the picture.

After capturing the tracks blend the two sources how you like.
This is close but not quite the right way to put it. Not looking for the volume of the buzz. Instead, you want to match the quality of the hiss. It's really a great way to find out how much high/low your mic is capturing.
The trick is to use the amp hiss as if it were white/pink noise.

The other caveat here is, as mentioned above, part of the the sound is the combination of speakers in the room. If you start with this direct method and work a room mic into the equation as well, you will get closed to what you feel when playing.


1. Get the amp either off the floor or tilted back so the sound is hitting you in the face, you want to hear all the details as you dial in your tone before mic'ing. Just get the guitar and amp sounding right to start. Take your time here.

2. Setup your mic and route the live mic signal into your headphones. Crank the amp so it's just hissing away like loud white noise. No guitar needed here. You just want as much hiss as possible.

3. Listen to the white noise without your phones and then try to match it in the headphones by moving the live mic around. Leave one phone on the one ear and the other ear off so you can match them. This will give you a very good idea of what your mic is capturing and what is isn't when you go to track. You'll be able to tell very easily if your positioning is giving you a warmer or brighter sound than you want.



If your guitar and amp sound good to you, using this method will give you 99% of that sound in your recording and you can easily replicate it later if you need to go back and overdub something in the future.

I still don't understand how people who just point the mic at the center, or edge, or angle it a bit randomly can ever replicate their sound later. When the mic is placed 'off center', well, how much? Which direction?

This method should capture exactly what you are hearing and you can even make little adjustments if you want to accentuate different frequencies the mic is 'hearing' from the cone.
Old 15th February 2019
  #32
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Reading threads like this one really helps me to realize how patient and process-oriented I am not. A lot of you guys must really like spending that much time. But I just want to get the song down.

So it's like the eye doctor. Which is better, A or B? Now B or C? B? Great. Make it red.
Old 15th February 2019
  #33
Lives for gear
 
ProgFree's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Well, if you're using crappy microphones it likely will. Like 57s and 421s. And tons of "budget mics". That bad off-axis response is just what you need to make things sound "small and garage".
Hmm lets see nope! Many records made with that mic combo with killer guitars sounds. Just happened to be listening to ACDC Rock or bust in my car today and remembered this post of yours and have to rebuttal. It was recorded with a 57 and 421, hardly small and garage sounding or?

But now I add that this mic combo needs high spl to shine.
Old 15th February 2019
  #34
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerry123 View Post
This is close but not quite the right way to put it. Not looking for the volume of the buzz. Instead, you want to match the quality of the hiss. It's really a great way to find out how much high/low your mic is capturing.
The trick is to use the amp hiss as if it were white/pink noise.

The other caveat here is, as mentioned above, part of the the sound is the combination of speakers in the room. If you start with this direct method and work a room mic into the equation as well, you will get closed to what you feel when playing.


1. Get the amp either off the floor or tilted back so the sound is hitting you in the face, you want to hear all the details as you dial in your tone before mic'ing. Just get the guitar and amp sounding right to start. Take your time here.

2. Setup your mic and route the live mic signal into your headphones. Crank the amp so it's just hissing away like loud white noise. No guitar needed here. You just want as much hiss as possible.

3. Listen to the white noise without your phones and then try to match it in the headphones by moving the live mic around. Leave one phone on the one ear and the other ear off so you can match them. This will give you a very good idea of what your mic is capturing and what is isn't when you go to track. You'll be able to tell very easily if your positioning is giving you a warmer or brighter sound than you want.



If your guitar and amp sound good to you, using this method will give you 99% of that sound in your recording and you can easily replicate it later if you need to go back and overdub something in the future.

I still don't understand how people who just point the mic at the center, or edge, or angle it a bit randomly can ever replicate their sound later. When the mic is placed 'off center', well, how much? Which direction?

This method should capture exactly what you are hearing and you can even make little adjustments if you want to accentuate different frequencies the mic is 'hearing' from the cone.
My phone has a camera.
Old 15th February 2019
  #35
Lives for gear
 

Don't know if someone has already said in this thread that:
while testing recording you should "mix" (roughly decent premix, not mixing for the final release) the whole song and "bad" settings in the drumkit mix and a wrong bass tone can make impossible to have guitars, synths and vocals to sit in a decent way like it happens in commercial records of the similar genre.
I mean that working with a totally screwed mix make impossible to have a valid reference point to adjust the tone,mic,knobs...
Specially if the guitars have an important role in the song.
Old 15th February 2019
  #36
Quote:
Originally Posted by toledo3 View Post
I agree with the issues you bring up about frequency response, but remember that as soon as you back up you are going to be getting early reflections. The laws of physics do work THAT way.

A well chosen mic with a wide bandwidth, that can take the SPL, is not going to have a ton problem relaying the frequency response of the amp pretty faithfully. Obviously with whatever tonal skew happens from the mic freq response and the rest of the chain, but that can be small in many cases.

I think a valid reason that makes people want to backup is that the mic they are using has an unpleasant proximity effect, or maybe just too much. Another is from using hot mics and not having pads.

I DO have a tendency to use mics which do not have overwhelming lows and low mids when using a close mic, and which aren’t the highest gain either. Love the RE series in that regard.

The other big factor in that for close mic, is how “fast” the mic is. Obviously a ribbon will have a tendency to shave some transients even if it’s close...but then you may get more wooliness with close placement, so backing off distance may feel right.
Well, as I just mentioned in the KM84 thread on that other site, if you're talking about a guitar amp at normal volume, backing off a foot to 18" really isn't going to pick up much more in the way of room sound unless you're in a room the size of an iso box . You will, however, get significantly less proximity effect, but that is something you can deal with using EQ if necessary.


You are not, however, going to get the sound of the full amp in the room by spot micing a tiny area of one speaker cone. You just aren't - laws of physics and all that. Speakers reproduce different frequency ranges at different diameters of the cone. And when you're dealing with an array of smaller speakers youy are not going to get the full low end up close because the bass wave ofgf the array doesn't really form until you get a little bit away - up close the sound is going to be thinner and more midrangy.

Think of the on axis pickup of the mic like the beam of a flashlight, which forms a cone with the apex at the light source (the diaphragm of the mic) - up close you're going to get a very small, tight circle. As you back up a bit the cone of the on-axis area spreads out. How much it spreads depends on tyhe directionality of the mic.
Old 15th February 2019
  #37
Quote:
Originally Posted by 64gtoboy View Post
My phone has a camera.
How nice. What does that have to do with the price of marmalade in China?
Old 15th February 2019
  #38
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProgFree View Post
Hmm lets see nope! Many records made with that mic combo with killer guitars sounds. Just happened to be listening to ACDC Rock or bust in my car today and remembered this post of yours and have to rebuttal. It was recorded with a 57 and 421, hardly small and garage sounding or?

But now I add that this mic combo needs high spl to shine.
And the 3-10 Bandmaster is what I'd call a moderate level amp, especially with the stock Jensen speakers which will probably blow if you push them too hard. Speakers get delicate after 60 years.

Also not remotely the sound that the OP is trying to capture. The 57/421 sound is fine for certain genres of hard rock, where it has become pretty much a cliche. However, if you're not doing hard rock or some kinds of punk (which often favors trashy sounds anyway) those mics pretty much suck. Believe me, I've got a box full of them and the only time I use them anymore is doing live sound at hard rock and punk gigs where I don't want to risk my good microphones.

Both the 57 and the 421 have absolutely terrible off-axis sound. Ever use 421s on rack toms? Did you notice how difficult (pretty much impossible) it is to get a decent cymbal sound? It's the off axis leakage on the 421s that's mucking everything up. Did you notice that bringing up the tom mics makes the snare sound funny? It's not all phase cancellation problems - a lot of it is the crappy off-axis sound of the 421. Ever listen to the hi-hat bleed when you have a 57 on snare? Atrocious.

But back on track - the OP is trying to get a good reproduction of the sound he hears from his amp in the room. He has been unable to achieve it using all the "conventional innerwebz wizzdumb." Because that's not how to record that amp if you want it to sound natural.

As it happens, I know the 3-10 Bandmaster pretty well. I used to play bass in a band where the guitarist used a lovely 1958 3-10 Bandmaster. Amazing amp. Unfortunately, the guitarist wasn't....
Old 15th February 2019
  #39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
Reading threads like this one really helps me to realize how patient and process-oriented I am not. A lot of you guys must really like spending that much time. But I just want to get the song down.

So it's like the eye doctor. Which is better, A or B? Now B or C? B? Great. Make it red.
Funny, I usually don't spend much time. I just put the mic where it's supposed to be and hit record. Usually it's right.

If a guitar player wants to be picky I'll generally indulge him, but that's him, not me.
Old 15th February 2019
  #40
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerry123 View Post
This is close but not quite the right way to put it. Not looking for the volume of the buzz. Instead, you want to match the quality of the hiss. It's really a great way to find out how much high/low your mic is capturing.
The trick is to use the amp hiss as if it were white/pink noise.

The other caveat here is, as mentioned above, part of the the sound is the combination of speakers in the room. If you start with this direct method and work a room mic into the equation as well, you will get closed to what you feel when playing.


1. Get the amp either off the floor or tilted back so the sound is hitting you in the face, you want to hear all the details as you dial in your tone before mic'ing. Just get the guitar and amp sounding right to start. Take your time here.

2. Setup your mic and route the live mic signal into your headphones. Crank the amp so it's just hissing away like loud white noise. No guitar needed here. You just want as much hiss as possible.

3. Listen to the white noise without your phones and then try to match it in the headphones by moving the live mic around. Leave one phone on the one ear and the other ear off so you can match them. This will give you a very good idea of what your mic is capturing and what is isn't when you go to track. You'll be able to tell very easily if your positioning is giving you a warmer or brighter sound than you want.



If your guitar and amp sound good to you, using this method will give you 99% of that sound in your recording and you can easily replicate it later if you need to go back and overdub something in the future.

I still don't understand how people who just point the mic at the center, or edge, or angle it a bit randomly can ever replicate their sound later. When the mic is placed 'off center', well, how much? Which direction?
Well, that's a good way to do it if you don't yet have a real feel for what you're doing yet.

But no, if the mic is close you won't hear exactly what's in the room. Usually that doesn't matter. Sometimes it does.

As to your last question "I don't understand, etc." all I can say is that when you've been doing it long enough you will.

Quote:
This method should capture exactly what you are hearing and you can even make little adjustments if you want to accentuate different frequencies the mic is 'hearing' from the cone.
And you've just contradicted yourself. If you can accentuate different frequencies by making little adjustments then obviously you're not getting exactly what you hear in the room, are you?
Old 16th February 2019
  #41
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
How nice. What does that have to do with the price of marmalade in China?
I also was referring to Jerry's not "understanding" how people replicate their sound later FWIW. Even Al Schmitt documented when he was learning. Something you did sounded great? Take a pic, add a description- no forgetting. BTW I agree with your statement about putting a better mic at the sweet spot for this particular example. It's obviously not the only way to get a good sound but IME it's probably the fastest/easiest way to get the sound the OP wants.
Old 16th February 2019
  #42
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 64gtoboy View Post
Something you did sounded great? Take a pic, add a description- no forgetting.
Especially important if someone else has to match what you did, or vice versa.
Attached Thumbnails
Guitar Amp Sounds Great But Records Poorly-mic_placement.jpg  
Old 17th February 2019
  #43
Lives for gear
 
ProgFree's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post

Both the 57 and the 421 have absolutely terrible off-axis sound. Ever use 421s on rack toms? Did you notice how difficult (pretty much impossible) it is to get a decent cymbal sound? It's the off axis leakage on the 421s that's mucking everything up. Did you notice that bringing up the tom mics makes the snare sound funny? It's not all phase cancellation problems - a lot of it is the crappy off-axis sound of the 421. Ever listen to the hi-hat bleed when you have a 57 on snare? Atrocious.
That is true for drums, sure. But some including me would say that such poor off axis response is what makes those mics great for guitars because one can easily control the amount of transient by tilting the mics if only slightly. And that allows me to keep the high while having softer transients.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #44
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProgFree View Post
That is true for drums, sure. But some including me would say that such poor off axis response is what makes those mics great for guitars because one can easily control the amount of transient by tilting the mics if only slightly. And that allows me to keep the high while having softer transients.
No.

Just no.

Poor off-axis response isn't good for anything. Period.

It's like saying that diarrhea is good for something.

Tilting the mic does not control transients because of off axis response or lack of it. It controls transients because different areas of the cone reproduce different frequency ranges more than others. Actually, the poor off axis response of those particular mics would tend to accentuate, not diminish undesirable transients.

The other thing that makes those mics useful for micing loud cabs for certain kinds of music is that when pushed hard those mics start to compress the signal, which is a function of the suspension of the diaphragm, not the off axis response, which is a function of the tuning (or lack of it) of the noise cancelling ports which create the cardioid pattern.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #45
Lives for gear
 
ProgFree's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
No.

Poor off-axis response isn't good for anything. Period.
If poor off-axis response would not be desirable to mic guitar cabs ppl would reach for much more for the 58 and not for the 57 as they do. But let's leave this here. YMMV and mine too...
Old 4 weeks ago
  #46
Quote:
Originally Posted by 64gtoboy View Post
I also was referring to Jerry's not "understanding" how people replicate their sound later FWIW. Even Al Schmitt documented when he was learning. Something you did sounded great? Take a pic, add a description- no forgetting. BTW I agree with your statement about putting a better mic at the sweet spot for this particular example. It's obviously not the only way to get a good sound but IME it's probably the fastest/easiest way to get the sound the OP wants.
Ah, yes, documentation is good. I usually use a pencil and paper, but then the "camera" in my phone really sucks. These days I usually know pretty much how I'm going to mic any given amplifier - there aren't many configurations I haven't worked with at this point, so I generally know where I'm going to put the mic and it's ballpark. It might take a little fine tuning, but that's true even if you have photo documentation. An exception would be cabs with dissimilar speakers or one particular "magic" speaker. Usually on those the musician will tell you what's good though.

I realize that this might damage people's preconceptions about me, but if you want real repeatability and you have one available, the Kemper is a great studio tool. If you get your sound, profile it and then you'll always have it, since what the Kemper gives you is essentially a snapshot of the recorded sound. You don't even need to be in the same studio to recall it.

Something that most people don't understand about reproducing sounds from previous sessions is that even if you duplicate the original setup exactly you won't always get the same results. That's because there are variables that are beyond your control - temperature, humidity, air pressure all change the way sound behaves.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #47
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProgFree View Post
If poor off-axis response would not be desirable to mic guitar cabs ppl would reach for much more for the 58 and not for the 57 as they do. But let's leave this here. YMMV and mine too...
Sorry, but you're dead wrong. The 58 is essentially the same mic as the 57 and has just as bad issues with off-axis response. The only real difference between the two is that the 58 has extra built-in pop filtering. There are some very minor differences in the phase plug in front of the diaphragm, but the core capsules are identical. Believe me, I'm stripped down many, many 57 and 58 capsules, interchanged parts even serviced broken lead out wires. They're the same capsule. There are bigger differences between those made before the mid '80s and the current production than there are between the two models. In fact I've got a stripped down capsule an arm's length away as I type this.

The cause of the problem is the design of the rear cancellation ports, which are part of the core capsule that's common to both mics.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #48
Gear Guru
 
kafka's Avatar
Have to say, John Eppstein really has it spot on in this thread. I keep an M201 in the stand at all times. It's pretty rare that I'll dig out an SM57.

Close micing is really an effect. Put your ear up the speaker. That's what it sounds like to the mic. Use it if that's what you want. I seldom do.

In addition to getting the amp off the floor, get it away from the wall, and try tilting it. Move it anywhere to get it to sound as good as it can in your space.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #49
Gear Maniac
 

Take a ribbon mic, and a nice big clean preamp. Face mic directly at center of best speaker a foot away.

Mic the room.

This usually works for me if I like what I'm hearing in the room. Keeping it away from the floor might make some of the mud go away if there's more low-mids in your recording than reality.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #50
Lives for gear
 
ProgFree's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Sorry, but you're dead wrong. The 58 is essentially the same mic as the 57 and has just as bad issues with off-axis response. The only real difference between the two is that the 58 has extra built-in pop filtering. There are some very minor differences in the phase plug in front of the diaphragm, but the core capsules are identical. Believe me, I'm stripped down many, many 57 and 58 capsules, interchanged parts even serviced broken lead out wires. They're the same capsule. There are bigger differences between those made before the mid '80s and the current production than there are between the two models. In fact I've got a stripped down capsule an arm's length away as I type this.

The cause of the problem is the design of the rear cancellation ports, which are part of the core capsule that's common to both mics.
They are the same capsules, everyone knows that even my dog...
But the differences in the cartridge makes the 57 have more off-axis rejection of 8 k than the 58 which is desirable for guitars as it tames that unnecessary air. Unless the polar patterns by Shure are wrong and you know some secret that they don't know. It can also be the case...
Old 4 weeks ago
  #51
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProgFree View Post
They are the same capsules, everyone knows that even my dog...
But the differences in the cartridge makes the 57 have more off-axis rejection of 8 k than the 58 which is desirable for guitars as it tames that unnecessary air. Unless the polar patterns by Shure are wrong and you know some secret that they don't know. It can also be the case...
"Cartridge" and "capsule" are different words for the same thing.

The printed polar patterns by Shure are not accurate. They're just an "artist's conception" of what the frequency curve is supposed to be. The reason that I say this is that back when I was working for FM productions (Bill Graham's sound and production company) we sent a lot of mics we we looking at standardizing on from companies including Shure, Beyer, AKG, etc out to an independent testing company. I have seen actual pen graph charts made for real Shure 57s and 58s, I'm not going by their idealized sales literature. There is actually rather poor consistency between individual examples of both the 57 and 58 and there is no difference between average examples of either model that is not attributable to the extra pop filter of the 58. In other words, if you unscrew the ball on the 58 you have a 57, pretty much. And there is certainly no difference in the poor off axis response. It's usually not as big a deal with a 58 because 99.99 percent of the time it's being used by a vocalist singing with his/her lips right up close to the middle of the ball, in which case it's a non-issue, but if you substitute a 58 for a 57 it has all the same problems.*

BTW, Shure's "polar patterns" tell you absolutely nothing about the real world off-axis response. You'd need morte than one line drawn inm the bass, one in the mids, and one ion the lower treble to actually tell anything - you'd need a full range pen graph at each of multiple points around the mic. No mic company that I know of furnishes that. The printed polar chart is just an idealized "guide".

I've already explained why - if you understood anything about microphone design you'd understand. It's caused by the way they do the noise cancellation porting to achieve the cardioid pattern and there's nothing you can do with external stuff tacked on to the core of the capsule that will alter that (except blocking the ports, which turns the mic into a very bad sounding omni.)


* - because of the problems with the Shure mics FM ended up standardizing on Beyer M69s for the standard vocal mic and M201s for the standard instrument mic. We probably would have gone with M88s for vocals but the front office decided they weren't "cost effective". We kept a couple of 58s around for Daltry style mic bashers.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #52
Lives for gear
 
ProgFree's Avatar
 

^
Look, I don't disagree with what you say about both mics, but they sound different in front of a cab. I hear a difference, others hear it too.

To the OP I would try two mics (it could be even 57) one in front and the other in the back of the cab. Micing the back of the cab is overlooked but can be important when one wants to capture a good roomy sound that has solid low mids and low end.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #53
RTR
Lives for gear
 
RTR's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Well, that's a good way to do it if you don't yet have a real feel for what you're doing yet.

But no, if the mic is close you won't hear exactly what's in the room. Usually that doesn't matter. Sometimes it does.

As to your last question "I don't understand, etc." all I can say is that when you've been doing it long enough you will.



And you've just contradicted yourself. If you can accentuate different frequencies by making little adjustments then obviously you're not getting exactly what you hear in the room, are you?
This "Find the buzz" Is something Eric Valentine said years ago, now people just regurgitate it, or just do it because he said he did,, you know how that **** works!
Old 4 weeks ago
  #54
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProgFree View Post
^
Look, I don't disagree with what you say about both mics, but they sound different in front of a cab. I hear a difference, others hear it too.

To the OP I would try two mics (it could be even 57) one in front and the other in the back of the cab. Micing the back of the cab is overlooked but can be important when one wants to capture a good roomy sound that has solid low mids and low end.
Of course you do - the 58 has an extra layer of foam in front of the cartridge, plus a second, thinner layer glued to the front. The 57 has screens. But none of that has squat to do with the off-axis behavior, which is lousy for both mics. The 58 is just lousy with a foam filter in front of it.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #55
Gear Guru
 
kafka's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProgFree View Post
Hmm lets see nope! Many records made with that mic combo with killer guitars sounds. Just happened to be listening to ACDC Rock or bust in my car today and remembered this post of yours and have to rebuttal. It was recorded with a 57 and 421, hardly small and garage sounding or?

But now I add that this mic combo needs high spl to shine.
Rock or Bust is, I think, a quintessential 57/421 guitar sound. If someone wants to know what those mics sound like, play the first track. I think actually one can do a better with those mics than on ROB, but that record is, to me, exactly what you'll typically get out of that combination.

Now, no, not small or garage. But also not big and open. It's really mid-range honky, especially compared to the Mutt Lange albums. I think ROB sounds very good overall, especially given today's bass-heavy expectations. Those guitars sit in exactly that one place in the mix. But if they were going for something dynamic and lively like the 40 yo old classics, it would have been easier with a different pair of mics. And, more specific to OP's situation, I also wouldn't have chosen them for his application.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #56
Lives for gear
 
kennybro's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
Reading threads like this one really helps me to realize how patient and process-oriented I am not. A lot of you guys must really like spending that much time. But I just want to get the song down.
So true. If I did a tenth of the stuff suggested in this thread, nothing would ever get recorded. Get the sound of the guitar in the room, and then capture it. Lately, I've been recording guitars with an 87, about 4 or 5 feet from the speaker.

Why would I want to spend time ensuring that I could replicate it later? I record a part, it's done, I move on. But if I did need to, I bet I could easily come close enough for R&R.

But then that's me. Some people get a massive charge out of process. I might make a pretty lousy scientist.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #57
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kennybro View Post
So true. If I did a tenth of the stuff suggested in this thread, nothing would ever get recorded. Get the sound of the guitar in the room, and then capture it. Lately, I've been recording guitars with an 87, about 4 or 5 feet from the speaker.

Why would I want to spend time ensuring that I could replicate it later? I record a part, it's done, I move on. But if I did need to, I bet I could easily come close enough for R&R.
I think part of it is that after a while you develop a mental "toolbox" and you just get the job done. Habits that work. I've gotten so I really don't much care for "the process."
Old 3 weeks ago
  #58
Gear Guru
 
kafka's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
I think part of it is that after a while you develop a mental "toolbox" and you just get the job done. Habits that work. I've gotten so I really don't much care for "the process."
I agree with you here, which is why my M201 is always in the stand. I usually put it up and play, and let it go at that. It's pretty rare that I'd dual-mic a cab. I don't want to spend that kind of time mixing a guitar. I really prefer to just get my levels right and be done with it, if I can help it. I just wouldn't make the SM57 my go-to mic.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
I think part of it is that after a while you develop a mental "toolbox" and you just get the job done. Habits that work. I've gotten so I really don't much care for "the process."
Beginners get hung up on "process".
Old 3 weeks ago
  #60
Lives for gear
 
ProgFree's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kafka View Post
Rock or Bust is, I think, a quintessential 57/421 guitar sound. If someone wants to know what those mics sound like, play the first track. I think actually one can do a better with those mics than on ROB, but that record is, to me, exactly what you'll typically get out of that combination.

Now, no, not small or garage. But also not big and open. It's really mid-range honky, especially compared to the Mutt Lange albums. I think ROB sounds very good overall, especially given today's bass-heavy expectations. Those guitars sit in exactly that one place in the mix. But if they were going for something dynamic and lively like the 40 yo old classics, it would have been easier with a different pair of mics. And, more specific to OP's situation, I also wouldn't have chosen them for his application.
ROB could be a text book example of that mic combination. One hears it with great detail. Have listened countless times to that very beginning you mention just to study that sound. Beautiful stuff! I agree that it is not their greatest sounding, but it sounds modern while keeping the acdc fingerprint which is hard given that their sound is very classic. Another record which is text book for that mic combo is Tool's 10 000 days, love it!
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
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
fracturematt / So much gear, so little time
24
chris33AD / Low End Theory
4
Pete Marriott / Rap + Hip Hop engineering and production
41
James Lugo / So much gear, so little time
10

Forum Jump
Forum Jump