Opinions: Mixing guitars
Home > Home Recording Forum > Mixing Techniques > Opinions: Mixing guitars
Posted on Dec 13, 2004 03:36 pm
TheJazzyOne
Your favorite rockstar
Member Since: Feb 03, 2003
Over the next few days (or who knows, maybe over the next few hours) I'll probably start a few topics just to get some mixing opinions from you guys. I know just about everybody has their own methods and tricks for getting the sounds they like, so I thought it would be cool if we can all jump in and share ideas, and who knows, maybe come up with some new theories and ideas to try.
Anyway, first of all, mixing guitar. How do you approach getting a big sound without cluttering up the mix?
Let's say you have two guitars....
One clean, and one distorted?
Two distorted?
Two clean?
Just looking for opinions and discussion, so if you have other examples still be sure to chime in.
[ Back to Top ]
Dec 13, 2004 03:52 pm with distortion, i pan full left and full right, using a slightly different distortion for each track. one is brighter with more midrange, the the other is darker, with mids sucked out. so that means i play the riff twice. if it's complicated to get the timing down because the riff is fast sometimes i will make one of those guitars take on more of a rhythm role, so as not to have them get out of sync. for support, clean guitars can then be panned part-left or part-right. or another dist guitar can perhaps be placed at like 40 percent right or something. because panning far l/r can make the guitar spacious but also less prominent.
i'm still working on this myself. great thread.
i am currently interested to know who applies shelving filters to distorted guitars, and if so where.
TheJazzyOneYour favorite rockstarMember
Since: Feb 03, 2003
Dec 13, 2004 04:08 pm So forty, do you double up every guitar part?
Do you ever have some clean guitar maybe just partly right, and not a second part?
Dec 13, 2004 04:11 pm since it might help, I will paste an answer I left in another thread regarding this subject:
personally, I usually record two mono tracks of guitar pan them slighty different (not hard left and right) and EQ them a little bit different, it gives a very big sound. But there are times I only want one thin track...every project is different...
I don't usually have anything except kick drum and vocals sitting dead center. I generally have everything else panned, maybe ever so slightly, some way or another.
I think panning hard left and right fills up the whole stereo image with guitar, I hate that, I want some positioning available for the other instruments as well.
TheJazzyOneYour favorite rockstarMember
Since: Feb 03, 2003
Dec 13, 2004 04:18 pm db, you don't pan bass to center? That's kind of interesting.
I like having things spaced out, but sometimes I feel like my songs aren't very balanced.
Dec 13, 2004 04:25 pm jazz,
there was a spell when i did like DB, avoiding hard l/r. the results sounded ok--maybe better--in headphones but sucked in my jeep's sound system. so i had to revert to hard l/r. it is working well enough. i am keeping other instruments more toward the center. for the one section of my current song, i have four, all distorted and panned hard l/r and either 40 or 60 l/r, i forget. that section needed the extra layering--i needed guitars everywhere. this is wall-of-sound stuff. but there are probs with this method for sure. i agree with what db said. and hard l/r sometimes makes it hard for a part to stand out. it seems useful mostly for those times where you need heavy backdrops--almost 'pads'--of distortion. of course, some music completely relies on this.
when using clean electric guitar i will usually just have one guitar with a light effect on it, and pan it like you said. it sounds great if you use maybe an acoustic for rhythm and pan that to the other ear.
i have recently noticed that in some music that sounds 'big' there is really not that much guitar. i'm not sure but i think in some nirvana kurt is using a single guitar track. the mixing makes it seem big. i would love to learn to do this. i suspect that radiohead also did this on 'the bends.' more and more i am feeling like doubling and hard l/r is a kind of cheap way to fake a big sound.
Dec 13, 2004 04:26 pm no, well, sometimes close, but not dead center, I usually pan it opposite (or close to opposite) of the rhythm guitar, but then, if I have synths and stuff in the mix too it can mix things up a bit...as typically I have been a guitar/bass/drums rock and roll kinda simpleton...but my techniques are changing as I am getting more into softsynths and such things...
TheJazzyOneYour favorite rockstarMember
Since: Feb 03, 2003
Dec 13, 2004 05:41 pm forty... I'm at the same place you are I think. I'm hearing songs that sound HUGE, but then when I really listen, the guitar doesn't seem like it's a big part of the mix. I would love to know how they pull that off.
Dec 13, 2004 07:05 pm let's try to work on it.
i think that basically the single guitar needs to be compressed pretty heavily, and on a lot of these songs, if you really listen and take out your headphones one by one, there is a stereo presence to the guitar, but it does not sound as if the parts have been played twice. the guitar in one ear will be much quieter but is still there. sounds like one signal is being split in a very specific way, and i hear this constantly in different songs by different bands. this is what i need to figure out how to acheive.
i havent played around with this too much but i may try duplicating the guitar mono track (instead of double-playing it, just copy/paste). then i may slide it forward by a hair to acheive a sense of stereo space, and turn it down in volume, or maybe EQ some of the low frequencies out.
other things i think would help: a great low end is crucial, so i'm working on getting kick and bass guitar working together without interference. and a big part i think of why the choruses seem bigger and fatter has to do with the high hats coming in, or the ride, and the crashes, etc. they really energize a chorus.
what do you think?
WaltChief Cook and Bottle WasherMember
Since: May 10, 2002
Dec 13, 2004 10:36 pm Hey Forty, Jazz;
Hope you don't mind I am going to subscribe and look on per your experimentation. I too will dupe a track and delay it's start oh, around 3 to 7 milliseconds to create a larger presence with a bit of natural "time to ear" stereo effect. I'm also wondering if rolling off the top of the highs and the bottom of the lows for the delayed signal might also add to the "natural-ness" of the effect as it is a form of reverberation in essence.
Dec 13, 2004 10:39 pm yes i think walt's right. end result is, it does seem like a sort of reverb that your ear ends up perceiving overall. walt, how are you going to delay the start so precisely? i was going to drag the copied file, but of course that will be wildly imprecise and also probably a bit too gross of an adjustment without a lot of magnified playing around...
Dec 13, 2004 11:05 pm Hmm, I love the sound Chevelle gets so that heave stuff is what my $0.02 is based on.
I have been trying to get that sound with a stock fender strat and, not to toot my own horn, but I think I am getting decent at it.
When I have my low end somewhat set (bass, kick) I will start on the guitars. I let the bass dominate the low end and I think this is really important if you want a solid low end. I low shelf somewhere around 150-180 and take off 3dB or so. (I track with a hpf at 80Hz) I normally cut between 230-300 somewhere to let the bass poke though. I like to have a lot of crunch and not so much fizz to my guitars so I go with a very narrow Q and take a cut of about 10dB or so and sweep 1.5kHz thru 3.5kHz. I find were it starts to sound less fizzy and adjust to taste.
I never compress distorted guitars because I always end up taking the comp off. I always have at least two tracks, and sometimes four tracks of guitar. Same thing played with different settings. I use two similar but different distortions with two different pickup combos for a total of four tracks. I never cut the same freqs. with eq on all the guitars (you want variation).
That’s about it. This is what it sounds like: www.soundclick.com/bands/3/morethenmademusic.htm
Of course, if you think it sounds like crap, don't follow my advice. The first part is just one guitar track and the drums, nothing else. The kick is a little tubby but hey, that’s tomorrows thread right?
Dec 14, 2004 12:09 am yikes...page wont load?
DiemusikString benderMember
Since: Unknown
Dec 14, 2004 12:50 am One trick I like to use if the situation allows is to record two distorted guitars playing the same part but play one an octave higher. Then I will pan one of them left to say somewhere between the 9 or 10 o'clock position and the higher part around 2 or 3 o'clock. This gives a nice big sound. The trick to this one seems to be to not go too far left or right because it then sounds like two different guitars instead of one big one.
WaltChief Cook and Bottle WasherMember
Since: May 10, 2002
Dec 14, 2004 12:50 am In Cubase SX 1.whatever each track has start and end points that can be edited. You can set the the project parameters for time instead of bars and the times are calibrated down to the millisecond. I usually start all my tracks at 0.00.000 then any I want to delay I just edit "type" in the desired start time.
Dec 14, 2004 01:40 am ok i'll take a look at that.
TheJazzyOneYour favorite rockstarMember
Since: Feb 03, 2003
Dec 14, 2004 11:26 am Forty, the way I do precise delays like that is this:
I use a delay effect plugin, and set the delay to however long I need it. Then I turn the dry signal all the way to 0 and the effect all the way up. Basically all you're getting at that point is the delay, not the original. It sounds exactly like the original track, except it's pushed a few milliseconds back.
Probably not the most efficient way, but it's extremely easy to be exact.
I did read the message before I left work about trying to figure out the guitar thing. I had about 30 minutes to play with a mix last night before other obligations took over, and although I didn't come up with anything conclusive, I think you may be onto something with the slight panning and the EQ. I hope to play more in the next couple of days, and I'll keep you guys up to date on what I learn.
af_analogcrazy canuckMember
Since: Nov 25, 2004
Dec 14, 2004 01:54 pm I like doubling the guitar track, pan one left and one right (to whatever degree suits you or the song/part)...I EQ them both exactly the same, but what I do to give them different tonal qualities is to actually use 2 different guitars, say a Les Paul on one side and maybe a Tele on the other (any two guitars would work). They always seem to blend well together because they are EQ'd the same, played through the same rig, but they obviously have different tonal qualities...anyone else do this?
Dec 14, 2004 02:56 pm not me, i only have one guitar. but i do currently use two different distortion sounds and play the part twice. its a good, thick sound for but i'm after something specific now.
i think db pushes the copy/paste then 'delay one side' method. someone on HRC does anyway. thats where i first read about it. it didnt seem like that could be all there is to it at first, but after listening to many bands' guitars to figure out what they're doing, i realized that a lot of times it has to be only one guitar, and it's this weird reverb-spaciousness that makes it work, and it has to do with the way the single signal is split between left and right. and it is still a mystery.
what would help us is some examples of common songs where you can hear this going on. as soon as i run across a song i'm sure is doing something like this, i'll post the name, or a snippet.
Dec 14, 2004 02:56 pm jazzy, i am going to use that delay method. thanx
Dec 14, 2004 03:14 pm bennis hahn, could you go into a little deeper how you get that sound? it's a good one, definitely. i might want to do something similar for some songs. here are some questions:
1. do you use mic'ed amps or an emulator of some kind?
2. what is hpf?
3. you cut between 230 to 300 to let overtones of the bass poke through? like pick noise and pluck?
4. what different pickup combos are you using?
5. the fizz/crunch aspect is impossible to convey in words. every distortion is different. i'm not sure that that kind of notch/sweep will work with something like, say, the POD. but out of interest, when you say 'very narrow Q' how narrow are you talking? Q widths are an endless puzzle for me.
6. hard to believe those guitars arent compressed. how do you get them so loud??
7. and finally, that better be a live drum set or i'm coming over to your house with a tape recorder, a straight-backed chair, and some rope. :)
af_analogcrazy canuckMember
Since: Nov 25, 2004
Dec 14, 2004 03:23 pm fortymile, my appologies...I wasn't trying to explain how to get that particular sound, I was just explaining what I like to use. But, for the "huge" single guitar sound, maybe it's not a single signal copied to various positions but several mics on the cab that are treated differently and panned stereo. This is what I would imagine the pro's are doing...just a thought.
Dec 14, 2004 03:26 pm Actaully, the last time I recorded in a pro type studio, the engineer moved the guitar amp to the basement and totally cranked it up, had a mic right on the cone and had a couple other mics scattered around the basement, so it was just different mics recording the exact same guitar part. No copy and pasting or anything like that...and it wasn't panned across the whole stereo field...just a bit off either direction from the center of the guitar sound, which was the cone mic. It was an AWESOME sound that dude got.
TadpuiI am not a crook's headMember
Since: Mar 14, 2003
Dec 14, 2004 03:47 pm We keep starting threads about recording guitars, and I keep giving (and reading) the same advice:
- boost your mids
- turn down your distortion
are the 2 big things that made the most difference for my guitar sound when recording. they greatly enhance clarity when recording distorted guitar. when you hear those huge distorted tones on a record, they usually aren't using that much distortion.
Other than that, my other big suggestions:
- get your amp off of the floor
- find a tube amp, crank it, and mic it
- double-track all of your "big" electric parts.
- make sure that your guitars are in tune and well-intonated before you start tracking
I think that the piece of equipment that affords me the most versatility in my sound without even touching my amp's knobs is my compressor/sustainer pedal. It's a great way to add sustain and volume without really adding more distortion. I play with a low-gain sound most of the time. My amp has a boost channel, but its usually too much boost. It really kicks the amp into a Black Sabbath kind of mode, when my usual tone is more of a Jimmy Page/Mick Ronson. My Boss CS-3 can boost my sensitivity and input volume enough to push my output tubes into a nice, even distortion that makes for a wonderful (to my ears, at least) solo or "emphasis" kind of distortion.
I don't know if anybody would be impressed by the tone or not, but my most recent recording "Alone In The Crowd" uses just the crunch channel for the verse, double-tracked crunch channel w/the compressor engaged for the chorus, and the same for the guitar lead. I know I still have a ways to go for recording prowess, but if you listen to that, it'll give you an idea of what I'm achieving with the above-mentioned tactics employed.
TadpuiI am not a crook's headMember
Since: Mar 14, 2003
Dec 14, 2004 04:01 pm Yeah, those articles are definitely required reading for guitar micing.
TheJazzyOneYour favorite rockstarMember
Since: Feb 03, 2003
Dec 14, 2004 04:07 pm I read (and generally enjoy) the articles here, but my favorite part about HRC is discussion. I love to hear everyone's unique ideas and approach. The articles grab my attention once, but it's the discussion that keeps me coming back.
Dec 14, 2004 07:50 pm Forty, glad someone liked the sound.
1. "do you use mic'ed amps or an emulator of some kind?"
I use a line 6 Spyder II combo with one 12" speaker. On that particular clip, I used a distortion from the amp (with heavy tweaking) for two of the tracks, and a boss DS-1 pedal in front of a clean sound. I put the amp on a bar stool and messed with it there with my ear close and on level to the speaker.
2. "what is hpf?"
high pass filter.
3. "you cut between 230 to 300 to let overtones of the bass poke through? like pick noise and pluck?"
Overtones are what I am after. I want something that will fill the track up and let the bass be heard on small speakers. I think of the bass as an extension of the guitar for a heavy tone.
4. "what different pickup combos are you using?"
stock Mexican strat. I use the bridge/mid position and the neck/mid position for my two different combos. I have the tone around the middle. I don't use the single-coils one at a time b/c of buzz and the tone isn't right for that kind of tone.
5. "the fizz/crunch aspect is impossible to convey in words. every distortion is different. i'm not sure that that kind of notch/sweep will work with something like, say, the POD. but out of interest, when you say 'very narrow Q' how narrow are you talking? Q widths are an endless puzzle for me."
hmmm, I'll see if I can post some fizz and crunch for ya (IMO, of course). I use the eq when mixing so, I don't know how it would work on a pod either. When I say narrow, I mean narrow. In cakewalk hs2004 I use a Q of 10-11, just enough to take out the fizz. To much attenuation in that area would leave the guitar with no high end or meat.
6. "hard to believe those guitars arent compressed. how do you get them so loud??"
I run my amp loud (shake the room loud) without a lot of distortion. This lets the dynamics come though and I think this contributes a lot to the "loud factor"
7. "and finally, that better be a live drum set or i'm coming over to your house with a tape recorder, a straight-backed chair, and some rope. :)"
Dec 14, 2004 11:07 pm ok, what db and af_analog are saying makes a whole lotta sense. im sorry i didnt read the other replies yet, but i have company over right now and will have to get back to them.
how could we mimic this sound if we: don't mic our amps, dont use mics at all, and/or use a distortion modeler like the POD, etc?
any ideas?
olddogMember
Since: Jul 02, 2003
Dec 15, 2004 12:42 am forty, IMO the same principles apply whether you mic an amp or use a POD. I played around a little with Bennis suggestions last night and got pretty close to that sound just using an existing track I had.
I agree the articles are very good and valuable reading. I find most of the articles though are very general/broad, where as the discussions tend to be going after more specific things.
Dan
Dec 15, 2004 02:55 am db, i probably don't read the articles as much as i should. but anything involving amp micing is not going to be something i can do anyway. it's a stubborn problem, this distortion issue, and in a very big way, for my needs, it's pretty much my only problem. anything else can be toyed with, tweaked, and i can find a number of solutions. but fdor guitar it's either excellent or horrible--there is no in between. i guess thats why i take up forum space talking about it.
TadpuiI am not a crook's headMember
Since: Mar 14, 2003
Dec 15, 2004 12:10 pm "but anything involving amp micing is not going to be something i can do anyway"
...well, unfortunately, I think that you're kind of chasing a rainbow. The guitar cab emulators can do a pretty convincing job, but I don't think they'll ever replace micing a cab. I can tell by your struggles that you hear the shortcomings of emulators, and I don't think that they'll ever make you completely happy.
Maybe you can come up with some sort of system that'll allow you to crank up your amp every once in a while for recording. Maybe an isolation box? A Hot Plate? Yellow Jackets? Even a low-wattage amp such as one of those Gibson GoldTone, Les Paul, or even Epiphone Galaxy (?) amps. Good, smooth, tube distortion at the volume of a trumpet!
There's gotta be a solution that'll give you the distortion you like without getting you evicted.
TheJazzyOneYour favorite rockstarMember
Since: Feb 03, 2003
Dec 15, 2004 12:54 pm What kind of emulator do you guys use?
I use the V-Amp, and I love it. That with my Antares Tube DX plugin is pretty darn nice.
Dec 15, 2004 12:59 pm POD (and the GreenMachine II a little bit) for guitar, Vamp for bass.
Dec 15, 2004 02:12 pm ...I can tell by your struggles that you hear the shortcomings of emulators, and I don't think that they'll ever make you completely happy.
yeah but i'm committed to them. there's just no way i'm going to mess with amps again until i get a practice room when i get a band together next year, and maybe not even then. i'm hoping that if i can approximate this multi-mic composite effect with the emulator, i will be happy. tones will hopefully continue to improve. i just dont like amps. it'll have to be about coming as close as i can, i guess.
Dec 15, 2004 03:51 pm (before i post...it will be useful to know that my brothers band is practicing about 20 feet behind me right now and its very hard for me to concentrate...so if some of the things i say dont make sense..or are missing words...try to make the best of it...ill wait till there done playing and ill try and come back and edit the post if its that bad
wow....great post...but for me...this always depends on the song...and what kind of guitar parts i have in the song...even if a band plays live and have 2 guitar parts going on at the same time...when we record...that part might require 3 or sometimes 4 mono tracks panned and EQ'ed differently...what you have to do is listen to a song and ask what guitar parts do what..and why? and if they are there to achieve a certain effect or feeling...then try to do whatever you can to accomplish this...i like to think of my mixes and recordings as a play or drama...and every instrument (character) needs to be there for a reason and contribute to the complete mix (story)...
as far as mixing...if i have two distorted guitars...ill use two different types of distortion...maybe two different amps...maybe two different guitars...then ill EQ them both differently...however i always roll off anything below 150 or so...and this partially goes back to the statement about how i consider my mixes a drama or play...and if the guitars have too much low-end then they are sort of SHOWING-UP the actual low-end instruments...
also it helps to sit down and think about what instruments will occupy which range...low...low-mid...mid...high-mids...highs...and then making sure they do just that...
next it helps to sit down and decide how your stereo-image is going to "look"...meaning youll decide how dramatic you want this "image" to be...
then...dont forget to mess with the dynamics and whatnot...such as a compressor...as it pertains to guitar...i start at a ratio 3:1, then i use a fast attack and slow release to give it alot of sustain...and i just mess with the threshold so it effects the signal slightly and doesnt squash it completely...so it still retains some of its natural feel...
and now to backtrack...i record guitars with a mic...sm-57 up against the grill with the amp juiced...i usually start with it pointing straight into the cone...but this tends to produce too much of any "edgy" sound...so then ill move in between the inner circle of the song and the outter circle of the cone with for gets more of a mid-range sound...just mess with it...it might take a while...but once you master this and understand it fully you will be an invaluable asset to any recording or studio you work for...
Dec 15, 2004 03:54 pm as far as dB's comment concerning whether or not people read the articles...yes!!!! i do...thats why i hardly post with questions...if you search the forums and are smart about how you phrase the query or search-words...youll find tons of posts about your question....this site within itself is an encyclopedia brittanica for home recording and studio recording in general...
TheJazzyOneYour favorite rockstarMember
Since: Feb 03, 2003
Dec 15, 2004 04:15 pm Forty, let's keep analyzing....
What does the dual mic thing accomplish?
Well, if you're working with a dynamic/condenser combo, the dynamic is extremely close to the speaker. It gets lots of low end, very little natural reverby sound from the room. Then condenser gets less low end, but more crisp highs and unless the room is 100% dead you're potentially going to get a hint of room reverb.
When you use an emulator, couldn't you just copy the track and EQ, effect to accomplish the same task? It wouldn't take much effect at all, and the frequencies should be present in the signal so that the EQing shouldn't be TERRIBLY difficult.
Dec 15, 2004 04:42 pm real speakers and air interacting is something that just cannot be replicated in a modeling device. i am not saying this is good or bad but the interaction between two mics, (with the possibility of them being off-axis) the room, and the amp gives a product not easily modeled at all.
Dec 15, 2004 05:21 pm jazz that's a good point. it's worth noting that the NI guitar rig modeler does exactly this. with that thing you have the option of mixing off-axis and on axis mics of different types into a single signal. it contains mic models of many types which you can position graphically in front of graphical amps at different distances and orientations. i am urging friends of mine to get it so i can experiment.
anyway i will give these methods a try within the next two days. i've had visitors so i havent had a chance to try this stuff yet. jues' article and probably db's goes into micing amps with condensers and dynamics. imma read em and try mimicing.
Dec 15, 2004 05:40 pm But ya know what, for a lot of people in our position it is about more than subtle nuances of the sound that are different. Some of us have babies napping, neighbors in apartments and other things. These types of situations make recording direct a necessity. Just as well, myself, I think the POD sounds great, is it a real amp? No, but it sounds great. It's not about how accurately it imitates a real thing, it whether it sounds good or not, and about the conienvence and other such things out of the persons control...so in those situations it's simple ratio of percentage of sound improvement va. percentage of pain in the *** being introduced...
Also, with judicious use of double tracking, different reverbs, timing and other such things, you can get an emulated sound sounding pretty friggin wicked if the orignal emulation is good.
TheJazzyOneYour favorite rockstarMember
Since: Feb 03, 2003
Dec 16, 2004 10:47 am I have the capability to mic my Marshall half stack at pretty loud volumes, but I very often still want to use my V-Amp. To me the emulation in it is AWESOME, it's easy to tweak, and it's like having 32 amps besides the two I have sitting in my studio.
Most of the serious recordings I do have both real amps and simulated amps in them. I use the emulated amps for the same reason a lot of you use emulated effects plugins instead of an analog unit: It gives me lots and lots of different possible sounds.
In my studio at almost all times there is a Marshall 100 watt half stack, a Fender M80 Chorus combo amp, a V-amp with 32 simulated amps plus (I think) 16 different built in effects, roughtly 20 different guitar effects pedals, probably 8 or so electric guitars, and 4 acoustic guitars... I love having options! (and bandmates that leave their gear in my studio)
Anyone who hasn't really sat down and played with the V-Amp and the POD (the two best emulators by far, in my opinion), are really missing out on what amp emulation can do
Dec 16, 2004 01:24 pm portability, the ability to play without people hearing the awful process of songbirth, and definitely options are why i enjoy emulation. it's great to have different sounds ready to dial up.
ok so i've tried copy/pasting and introducing delay, but no luck yet. doing this leads to a sound that is very similar to what i had been doing, which was just double-tracking with two different distortions. i guess my next step is to listen closely to just some right/left channels in relevant songs and try to figure out EQ matters.
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Dec 16, 2004 04:00 pm a killer tool that lets you crank a full stack without having it super loud is THD's Hot Plate...you use it as a sort of volume control between the head and the speaker cabinet. that way, you can crank the tubes and keep it as loud as you want. mic'ing that sounds way better than the POD, i think.
Dec 16, 2004 04:02 pm I had a "PowerSoak" back in the day (like 15 years ago) designed by Tom Schultz (of Boston fame) that did pretty much the same thing, I had forgotten about that...good shout Minkus...well, other than your dis on POD. :-p
TadpuiI am not a crook's headMember
Since: Mar 14, 2003
Dec 16, 2004 04:40 pm i mentioned a hot plate above but he didn't seem too receptive
TheJazzyOneYour favorite rockstarMember
Since: Feb 03, 2003
Dec 16, 2004 05:07 pm I don't think it's a matter of not being receptive.
I think it's a "never say die" mentallity after being told he couldn't achieve what he wanted from an emulator.
I'm with forty... I think it can be done. The trick is to find the method.
Dec 16, 2004 09:54 pm if i understand the hot plate, it allows you to overdrive your tubes without having to turn volume up that high? i dont know much about stacks (or tube amps, for that matter.) never had money and need come together at the same time. but if i did ever spring for a stack, and if im understanding the hot plate concept correctly, you could get full blown natural tube distortion at low volumes. i'd be all over that.
but i'd still use my pod, because one of the pod's big plusses is i never have to lug a huge amp around. man how i used to hate that. like the winter i dropped my bass amp on my feet while slipping on an icy sidewalk in 19 degree weather.
Dec 16, 2004 10:15 pm well, there is a point were the hot plate will start to suck tone noticably. it is not a perfect solution.
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Dec 17, 2004 01:25 pm bennis, can you tell us more about that point? i see that when you start getting to the serious attenuation, it starts to give it a sort of graceful compression which is nice. of course right next to zero there's a spot where it is too quiet to really register much...is that what you're talking about?
forty, you have it right. one cool thing i like about it is how you can get past the "louder sounds better" mind trick and listen to a normally louder tube crank setting at a similar volume to a quieter one so that you can really pinpoint where you want the settings to be. it's like a gain knob with a compressor. too bad there's no bypass!
Dec 17, 2004 01:31 pm I don't own a hot plate, but have heard one several time (friend that I jam with has one) we both feel that past a certian point (which greatly depends on how hard you are driving the tubes in the first place) the tone just starts to suck. highs aren't crisp and the bottom gets flabby...
let me add: This is the only hot plate I have heard so maybe there is something wrong with it? I also don't think it sucks tone right away, it is good at what it does, but there is a certian point...
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Dec 20, 2004 10:18 pm There are tons of good ones out there, but most are not cheap by any means. I will still prefer my POD Xt ofer crowding another amp in this place again.
Dec 26, 2004 10:51 am I see "use mic and speakers" advisez, it's old and relatively stupid recomendation, especially, image, deep night, 100 W amp, crazy wife and childrens :-) But if you have Personal Computer you could try a lot of guitar amp simulation software for free! Think about free Line6+V-Amp+Digitech, all for free and all in your single PC! Fantastic? well, some software are not freeware, but there are a lot of freeware! See: guitar-software.info
TadpuiI am not a crook's headMember
Since: Mar 14, 2003
Dec 26, 2004 10:28 pm Sorry dude, but micing an amp is the standard way to record electric guitar. Old, yes. Stupid, I don't think so!
For family men, recording direct is the way to go. I can promise you that you won't get as good of a tone (as a miked amp), but if you can do it without waking your family, then hats off to you!
Myself, I own my own house, and I have an understanding wife that sleeps like a log. If I reeeeeealy want to, I can crank up my amp in the middle of the night and lay down a track or two. So I have no reason to compromise my guitar tone.
olddogMember
Since: Jul 02, 2003
Dec 27, 2004 12:15 am I totally disagree that you won't/can't get as good of a tone going direct, but I certainly wouldn't say mic'ing a cabinet is "stupid" or out moded. I say just use whatever floats yer boat. :)
Dan
Dec 27, 2004 06:10 am I'm with olddog, I have heard and gotten some GREAT guitar sounds direct...and miked. They both work great. Overall, I prefer direct, still a great sound without the worry of catching a rogue tiolet flush or furnace kicking in in the middle of a take.
Dec 27, 2004 12:48 pm I just got done reading all this, lots of good info here, but for me im more concearned with trying to come up with a unique guitar riff, rather than tone. I can listen to some of henrix's home recordings into a cheap tape recorder and go WOW! its all about the riffs man!
:)
