mic'ing guitar amp for thick sound question

Posted on

Home Recording Newbie
Member Since: Jan 09, 2005

i was thinking about trying something and i thought i may get your opinion on it. i have one sm57 mic, and really dont want to have to purchase a condenser but see it could really help me get a thicker tone. i was thinking about possibly double tracking, but on the second, use my sm57 from a farther distance than on the first track, so it kind of would serve a double track, and a second mic on the amp all with one mic, on seperate tracks. would this work or would this be hard to do? or even worth it?

[ Back to Top ]


I am not a crook's head
Member
Since: Mar 14, 2003


Jan 09, 2005 05:19 pm

I think that it would definitely be worth a try. Double tracking guitars and panning them in different spots in the stereo field almost always helps thicken the guitar sound.

I think that using a condensor mic on an electric is more for adding high-end clarity and not really for thickening the sound.

Also, back off on the distortion on electric guitars when recording them. It takes less then you'd think because too much distortion comes off on a recording as very thin and weak. Add more mids to your guitar amp than you're used to also...it adds clarity. Remember that what your ear hears in the room and what a microphone hears when right against the grille are two different things.

Of course, I took my own advice while tracking my latest project, and I think I added too much midrange to the guitars. So there is a point of diminishing returns!

Hello!
Member
Since: Jan 12, 2004


Jan 09, 2005 05:38 pm

Aye, I must try this too...little over a year into home recording and very little real amp mic'ing I have done!!

Laziness, and also, the fault of the vamp/amplitube/simulanalog plugs...canny whack em. Tho, ye also canny whack a real amp just cranking away the tones.

Good luck to ya

Coco.

The Quiet Minded
Member
Since: Jan 01, 2003


Jan 09, 2005 06:25 pm

try to use two mics. place the second mic paralel with the amp's grill. this will make you grab more of the low frequencies, since the highs will be less absorved by the mics dyaphragm. I have done it once and worked fine. as for double tracking I would suggest you to use the same mic placement and only mess with the eq afterwards.

hope this gives a hand.

Ex-Wookie
Member
Since: Aug 29, 2003


Jan 09, 2005 08:15 pm

I don't think you really have to do anything different with eq, positions at all if you double track. Being human is change enough.

Pinnipedal Czar (: 3=
Member
Since: Apr 11, 2004


Jan 09, 2005 10:04 pm

I agree with Bruno 'bout the micing, then once you get a solid 'reproduction' of the sound your micing, making space for thickening purposes is much easier through the manipulation of eq, pan, and eq'd reverb/delay . Not easy... just easier . This is where your software aux, and sub channels come in real handy . You can have different 'rooms' going on, and still keep a grasp on what your actual sound is... mixing-in as much of a room as you wish, and placing 'whoever' you want inside that room... as much as you wish . heh This really can thicken things up nicely, though it is a bit like walking a tightrope in terms of gainstaging . Each new facette(send/return) becomes a possible point of clippage, and things can get messy if you're not careful . Still easier than running 10 mics down a 100'-long hallway, or micing your amp inside your car . 8p

Home Recording Newbie
Member
Since: Jan 09, 2005


Jan 10, 2005 01:33 am

so you are saying i need to use two mics at a time? i only have one right now. if i did two takes,(on seperate tracks) with these two mic positions, will it be the same as trying to do two mics at the same time.... in theory?

Pinnipedal Czar (: 3=
Member
Since: Apr 11, 2004


Jan 10, 2005 02:53 am

Yes . You'll then use a method of gettin things into phase via manipulation of the pan and eq of the two signals . I wouldn't over-do the mic changes you make on the second pass, though .
Perhaps 'The jues method' may lend some ideas...
www.homerecordingconnecti...tory&id=140
... I have tried it, and a few variations of it with nice results .

Does your amp have a direct out on it ?

Personally, I tend to go direct mostly... out of laziness, and lack of respect for what I use for amplifiers... mostly just lazy . heh Cheers Coco !
As far as the Direct vs. Mic'd thing goes(that seems due for this thread), I find that the guitars I like recorded by those here at HRC are for the most part done via direct input through a guitar pre of some sort or another... all settings/sounds are very distinguished by the composer, so once again it comes down to what sounds good/personal-taste . I think most of us here work, and have lives that we try to fit this magic/mayhem into; so keeping things as simple, and consistant as possible tends to lean us towards the DI method . This maybe something worth looking into for y'self ? Hope some of this may help . Oh, and welcome to HRC stguitar !

The Quiet Minded
Member
Since: Jan 01, 2003


Jan 10, 2005 08:07 am

stguitar, I thing you are missing why double tracking works so well. BennisHahn was the one who nearly explained it. Double tracking works for a single reason, it is nearly impossible for a musician playing twice the same song to repeat the first performance exactly as he did when he plays the second. Now try to figure a waveform with just one execution of that part and compare to one mixed with two executions of the same part. The small execution imperfections make the sound THICKER, oh yes, now it is explained. Thats why some folks try to use the same waveform from a single performance and just pan and eq differently, that will never be as effective as playing twice, cause you will still have the same waveform. Record twice the same part, pan 80/80. Mic positioning or multi-miking is just a plus, double tracking is really simple and VERY effective. When you hear the difference you will figure out all this mess. btw there are other great tips here in this topic, read it carefully and you will have everything you need.

hope this helps a bit.

Home Recording Newbie
Member
Since: Jan 09, 2005


Jan 10, 2005 10:40 am

thanks alot guys by the way, you have given me alot to think about while im at working waiting till i can play with this agian. anyway, on my amp i have a preamp out, and a power amp in. i ahve the fender princeton 112 i believe is what it is. its not my favorite amp, but its what i have and what i have had for years. would this work for DI if i should lean that way?

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Jan 10, 2005 10:41 am

Yeah, it would work, but with guitar, without speaker/amp simulation it will loose some of it's characteristic sound. Guitar is a bit more difficult to record direct than many other instruments for that reason, but it CAN be done.

Perdido
Member
Since: Dec 15, 2004


Jan 10, 2005 10:46 am

That is exactly how I started... I plugged my guitar directly into the computer. No preamp or anything. For christmas, I was given a Behringer V-amp, and that added a lot to the sound of recording directly into the computer. I am VERY happy with the way it sounds now. If that is the route you take, good luck!

Home Recording Newbie
Member
Since: Jan 09, 2005


Jan 10, 2005 11:20 pm

well a friend and i were playing around, and i came to what i think is the best setup for one mic and my amp for a full clean sound. what i have done is simply place the mic about 5-7 inches back from the amp and turned the mic purpendicular from the direct sound so that it picks up more lows like you suggest in one of your tips dB Masters. is it possible for me to upload it so you could hear it and give feedback? if i dont have storage space here, i can prolly use my webserver that i run myself from home...

Related Forum Topics:



If you would like to participate in the forum discussions, feel free to register for your free membership.