The Best Time to Process Guitar?

S

scottfreems

New member
Hello, I am using Scuffham S-Gear amp modeling software to record electric guitar to Sonar X3. My question is when is the best time to sculpt the EQ and really nail in the guitar tone. For example, should I record with neutral EQ and wait for mixing to adjust the EQ or should I try to get the best guitar/EQ sound at the point of recording and just do little tweaks during mixing? Any tips of when various parts of guitar should be tweaked during the recording/mixing process would be greatly appreciated. Sorry for the newbie question, and I apologize if the question is a bit confusing -- for some reason I had trouble describing the problem.
 
"Best sound" is subjective.

Traditionally....guitar players like to get their tone up front, and then you tweak that a little in the mix as needed.
With sims and digital recording....there's been this obsession with recording guitars DI/dry and then reamp them or use the sim software, and wait until mix time to choose your guitar tones.

So....do what works for you.

I use amps and cabs and mics to record guitars, and I like get the tone about 80% up front, and then just tweak it during the mix. I guess if you are not sure what you want, then you're kinda forced to wait until the final mix to decide...or you can commit to some things and just roll with it.
 
scottfreems said:
when is the best time to sculpt the EQ and really nail in the guitar tone.
Click to expand...

I agree with Miroslav. It really helps to play your best when you can hear the guitar as you want it to sound. However, for most things I prefer to wait until mixing when you can hear everything in context. So I never EQ or compress bass or keyboards while recording.

--Ethan
 
Mister Natural said:
scott, I'm kind of the opposite of the above

I want to track a really clean and polished performance first & then effect that track. I think a lot of distortion/efx/eq can cause one to "gloss-over" any imperfections in the performance
Click to expand...

Yes...there's validity to that....having a super clean sound reveals every little quirk in your playing....
...however, it's not always about trying to "effect that track". IOW, for some folks, guitar tone is what you play against and feed off of, so going all clean is somewhat of a :yawn: for that....and sometimes the little playing imperfections make things sound more real/interesting.
Now it is possible to set up your tone so you can play against it...and then still record a clean track too off of a split, and save that in the DAW for whatever....but for me, by the time I dial in my tone, I'm not going to bother trying to audition 30 other tones later one when I mix, though I can see why some folks like to use the split/clean track as a safety net.
 
I adjust my tone (amp bass mid & treble controls, guitar tone control) for the sound I want when recording. EQ comes during mixing (scooping to remove low-mid mud, for example).
 
I think there's alot to be said for getting the tones you want and record that. I've gotten guitar and electric mandolin sounds in more than one way but I've come around to fixing on my preference. Once in a while, it's cute to re~amp and just mess about getting as different a final tone as possible from the one recorded but I couldn't do that for too long. I'm not getting any younger and time is running out ! When I'm thinking of the song in question, I'm already thinking of the kind of guitar or mandolin tone I want and I try out a few to see how they'll go with the drums and bass or other instruments.
I believe in committing right at the start and it's very very rare that once I've got my particular sound for the song I'll change my mind. I'm more likely to have a change of mind because I've detected some out of tune~ness.
In mixing, everything may be subject to EQ or not. Rarely will I use effects in mixing. In terms of guitar, I will record with the effects.
 
grimtraveller said:
.. In mixing, everything may be subject to EQ or not. Rarely will I use effects in mixing. In terms of guitar, I will record with the effects. ..
Click to expand...
Just to note a possible distinction - The 'effects, tones, distortions etc that make an instruments tone and style what it is, vs effects (and other treatments) that place' it in the mix. 'Spatial effects come to mind where the differences between the two can blur, so let's say for example 'reverb from the amp = part of the sound, perhaps part of the capture is 'the image of an amp 'there'. Vs no (or much less) reverb from the amp, mix delays or verb later to set the image size, depth etc.
 
mixsit said:
Just to note a possible distinction - The 'effects, tones, distortions etc that make an instruments tone and style what it is, vs effects (and other treatments) that place' it in the mix.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I think severe EQ or compression is best avoided during tracking, if only because it's difficult to reverse later if you find it's not right. However, EQ can be reversed exactly, as long as you note the precise settings.

--Ethan
 
I like to get the sound as close as possible to how the final product should sound. But everything sounds a bit different in the mix, so you tweak it there too.

Generally speaking, both professional and amateur recordists are losing grip with the endless possibilities for tweaking. Even if you don't record analog you should think in analog, or you'll get hopelessly lost in a sea of digital tools.

Think in simple terms like... Shure SM57 micing Les Paul through Marshall amp... and you set your tone how you want it to sound same as if you were playing live. If you start getting too far from real guitars, amps and analog controls you'll lose believability, if that's what you're going for. I'm talking rock here, so your mileage may very depending on what you're doing.

PS: Don't apologize for asking questions... but you can apologize for apologizing just this once... and then never again. ;)
 
Last edited:
Beck said:
Generally speaking, both professional and amateur recordists are losing grip with the endless possibilities for tweaking.
Click to expand...
One thing I've noted with interest over the years are manuals to digital equipment. I've often found that they contain so much information, far too much for me to ever fully get to grips with so while I like the scope that the endless possibilities for tweaking affords, I'm the sort of person that won't ever utilize "endless". A few more than usual, maybe.
Sometimes, there's a lot to be said for "the old ways".
Beck said:
Even if you don't record analog you should think in analog, or you'll get hopelessly lost in a sea of digital tools.
Click to expand...
If anything summed up my approach to DAWs, it's this. Sometimes when people post in about their problems with workflow having gone over to digital, I reflect that my workflow is still pretty much the same with my DAW as it was with my portastudio. Indeed, the reason I chose a standalone DAW was because it seemed to me the perfect halfway house between analog portastudio and computer editing. Being limited to 12 tracks also keeps me in the zone where I
Beck said:
Think in simple terms
Click to expand...
.
 
Personally, I only do subtractive eq'ing during tracking, just cutting out weird ugly frequencies that I know I will not want, cutting them out from the source. Guitars shouldn't have TOO much processing in my opinion, really except for a possible high-shelf or a HPF there shouldn't be a whole lot of eq'ing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top