EQing Heavy Distortion

[thehymns]

I'm new to recording, but I've had this band come over to my house to record some songs so I can get some practice and they can get a cheap demo. They use some pretty heavy distortion...I tried to convience them to turn it down because you don't need to crank the gain when recording but they refused to listen. I was wondering what some guidelines were for EQing guitar with distortion.

[kylen]

Well they can't say you weren't putting forth the effort to catch their vibe & sound.

I've had to put a bandpass EQ on guitars from hell (during mixdown). Something around 300Hz to 1.5KHz total width (assuming a good sounding rolloff or slope) for example. Just guessing of the freqs it all depends how you want to carve it but if you have a lot of EVH palm mutes and scratchy high distortion you may need to carve it like that. I was listening to an Melissa auf der Maur cut last night (Real a Lie) and they did this exact thing to give you a commercial example of this type of technique. If you stick an instance of Voxengo SPAN on the masterbuss (assuming you're in a DAW) you can see how deep the carving is - it's deep which is what a bandpass does. That leaves some nice room for the bass instruments as well as the highs that need the clarity up high - vocals, cymbols, top part of snare, hit-hats etc. Just an idea without hearing it...

[Zed10R]

Originally Posted by thehymns

I'm new to recording, but I've had this band come over to my house to record some songs so I can get some practice and they can get a cheap demo. They use some pretty heavy distortion...I tried to convience them to turn it down because you don't need to crank the gain when recording but they refused to listen. I was wondering what some guidelines were for EQing guitar with distortion.

You shouldn't have to EQ distorted guitar very much. If your recorded signal is an accurate reproduction of the source and you still need to mess with the EQ, then the problem lies with the signal source. Let the guitar player hear his tone recorded and try to explain to him what he needs to do to fix it. All the recording engineer is doing (at this point) is recording the source. You are not creating a sound, you are capturing a sound. Just having him turn the gain down will not fix the problem. Maybe he really does want ultra high gain. But if he is not happy with the recorded sound (assuming it is an accurate recording)he needs to fix it on his end.

HOWEVER, you DO need to shelve out a good bit of the guitars low end to make room for the bass. Just experiment with it. I'd suggest looking at shelving out the 120-80HZ range and lower. But I am not expert. That's just what I do and the results are pleasing to my ears.

[Sonixx]

don't try to convince them their gain is wrong... do just the opposite... tell them their gain is da bomb, fat and warm and you think it's just great... then start micing and record a bit... make a couple of very short takes and then ask them if that's the tone they're after... let them come to the conclusion it's not... once this happens, they're ready to listen more... gently nudge them in your direction... now adjust occordingly to get the tracked tone you want... they'll think you're an expert...

I never tell a guitar player their tone is anything but good... if they tell me it sucks, then that's an opening for me, otherwise I figure a way to help them decide it's not right

[giraffe]

Originally Posted by Zed10R

You shouldn't have to EQ distorted guitar very much. If your recorded signal is an accurate reproduction of the source and you still need to mess with the EQ, then the problem lies with the signal source.

that's a good rule of thumb, but metal is all a big lie created almost entirely in the studio.

lots of eq is used, even on the most professional of albums.

[gtrman_66]

For future reference, if you have a band like this that doesn't want to ease up on the distortion during tracking:

Assuming you have the extra tracks, take the direct signal straight from the guitars and split them to seperate tracks with direct boxes. Then you can re-amp through a clean(er) amp at the mixdown stage and blend to taste.

[Sonixx]

Originally Posted by gtrman_66

For future reference, if you have a band like this that doesn't want to ease up on the distortion during tracking:

Assuming you have the extra tracks, take the direct signal straight from the guitars and split them to seperate tracks with direct boxes. Then you can re-amp through a clean(er) amp at the mixdown stage and blend to taste.

+1 . . . .

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by Sonixx

I never tell a guitar player their tone is anything but good... if they tell me it sucks, then that's an opening for me, otherwise I figure a way to help them decide it's not right

I usually use the "don't ask/din't tell" policy ...if they don't ask me my opinion I won't give it, I'll just try to understand the sound they're dialing in and adjust my tracking to capture it accordingly.

If they ask me, however, I won't patronize them; I'll tell them exactly what I think. That doesn't mean I'll say that I don't like a particular sound based upon that not being my cup of tea; I'll still try to understand what sound they're shooting for and make recommedations, even if it's a sound I personally would never listen to. For example I personally am not a fan of the "Wall Of Gibson Sustain" sound at all, it does nothing but give me a headache. But if that's the client's style, I'll work with him to get it as nasty sounding as he wants. I'll just twist the rope that much tighter and chill the Crown that much colder after the session is over.

G.

[thajeremy]

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

I usually use the "don't ask/din't tell" policy ...if they don't ask me my opinion I won't give it, I'll just try to understand the sound they're dialing in and adjust my tracking to capture it accordingly.

If they ask me, however, I won't patronize them; I'll tell them exactly what I think. That doesn't mean I'll say that I don't like a particular sound based upon that not being my cup of tea; I'll still try to understand what sound they're shooting for and make recommedations, even if it's a sound I personally would never listen to. For example I personally am not a fan of the "Wall Of Gibson Sustain" sound at all, it does nothing but give me a headache. But if that's the client's style, I'll work with him to get it as nasty sounding as he wants. I'll just twist the rope that much tighter and chill the Crown that much colder after the session is over.

G.

But there is a good chance that YOUR name is going on that CD jacket. If the final product sounds bad, do you not worry about loosing business?

I have had a similar problem recently though. I recorded a band, consisting of some really close friends, with 2 guitarist...one would do whatever I asked of him...the other didnt want to "lose his tone". So...I recorded it the way he wanted....then at mixdown, his tracks were so low that you could barely hear them, except for one song where he was the only one playing and his tone was ear piercing. When he asked me why his tracks were so low...I said something like, "you guys know what you want to hear and are basically producing your own CD and thats fine. But that leaves me, as the mixer, with the job of making it sound good to the best of my ability. And if that means lowering the volume of tracks to keep it from being harsh on the ears, then thats what I will do." After letting him hear his ear piercing track, he apoligized and asked me to set his amp for him and thanked me when it was over.

[Sonixx]

generally telling guitarists their tone is bad, is like saying their playing sucks... obviously they like something about it

I tell the band up front that's it's my job to make them sound better than they really are... usually to a few chuckles...

I'll use phrases like:

"have you ever thought about"
"have you considered"
"let's try this"
"would you be open to"
"how about"

and then I end it with, you have the final say... even though the final say is really mine... for me it's all about getting buy-in and compromise.

if a shitty tone goes out the door, it's my fault...

[volltreffer]

The only thing that I found out to work with overdistorted guitar ist to use a multiband compressor. Any EQing didn't work with the tracks I had recorded. It'll take you some time to set it up properly, though (and that's almost impossible to do unless you have some experience with compression and a good understanding of multiband processing). I already know that I'll be bashed for my opinion, but I did not get rid of the different sonic qualities between open chords and muted stuff. Either the open stuff would sound thin or the muted parts were overwhelming

Personally, I'd tell the band to leave. They want a cheap demo, you'll find other bands that will do what you ask them for.

aXel

[Sonixx]

Originally Posted by volltreffer

The only thing that I found out to work with overdistorted guitar ist to use a multiband compressor.

It's still tough fixing it in the mix... it's much better to fix it at the source...

[Zed10R]

Originally Posted by giraffe

that's a good rule of thumb, but metal is all a big lie created almost entirely in the studio.

lots of eq is used, even on the most professional of albums.

Oh...you GOTTA elaborate on that...PLEASE tell me how metal is a lie created in the studio.....

[giraffe]

sampled drums (or ruthlessly eq'd)
heavily eq'd guitars
massive walls of git (sometimes as much as 30 tracks of git doing the same thing, or more!)

pitch bending/time stretching of vox
other massive vocal effects

it's fun.

i'm not saying the bands can't play their parts, most gigging metal bands have their shit together. but sonically, their are some hoops being jumped thru.

[Zed10R]

Originally Posted by giraffe

sampled drums (or ruthlessly eq'd)
heavily eq'd guitars
massive walls of git (sometimes as much as 30 tracks of git doing the same thing, or more!)

pitch bending/time stretching of vox
other massive vocal effects

it's fun.

i'm not saying the bands can't play their parts, most gigging metal bands have their shit together. but sonically, their are some hoops being jumped thru.

I don't know what passes for "metal" where you come from, but it sounds to me like it may actually be more like radio pop rock like Korn, Linkin Park and Creed. I'm pretty familiar with the recording techniqes of SOME metal bands, and I know there are plenty that do not sample drums, ruthlessly EQ guitars, or massively effect vocals. But, even if they all did, how is that more of a lie than the Beatles extremely resourceful recording techniques? They are praised for doing some of the same things you call a "lie" when applied to a different genre.

I believe sir, that you have either bought in to an ugly stereo-type, or our difinition of "metal" is VERY different.

[volltreffer]

Originally Posted by Sonixx

It's still tough fixing it in the mix... it's much better to fix it at the source...

ABSOLUTELY right!

aXel

[My Name]

Originally Posted by Zed10R

I don't know what passes for "metal" where you come from, but it sounds to me like it may actually be more like radio pop rock like Korn, Linkin Park and Creed. I'm pretty familiar with the recording techniqes of SOME metal bands, and I know there are plenty that do not sample drums, ruthlessly EQ guitars, or massively effect vocals. But, even if they all did, how is that more of a lie than the Beatles extremely resourceful recording techniques? They are praised for doing some of the same things you call a "lie" when applied to a different genre.

I believe sir, that you have either bought in to an ugly stereo-type, or our difinition of "metal" is VERY different.

"Lie" may have been the wrong word to use but with a thread like this you have to take into account huge generalisations.

I think what he is saying is that "many" metal recordings are hugely effected in the studio coz it is nigh on impossible to get the atmos and power of a live show without effecting the recording considerably.

There is nothing wrong with creating the sound in the studio you know

[Zed10R]

Originally Posted by My Name

There is nothing wrong with creating the sound in the studio you know

As a rule, I will not record anything that cannot be reproducd live by 4 or 5 guys playing intruments and singing. With that as a guideline, I agree with you 100%.

[grn]

you're missing a lot of great music if you won't record anything that cannot be reproduced live by four or five guys playing instruments and singing... some studio only shit is mind blowing

[giraffe]

Originally Posted by Zed10R

As a rule, I will not record anything that cannot be reproducd live by 4 or 5 guys playing intruments and singing.

if you want a live album, record them live.

[Sonixx]

Originally Posted by Zed10R

As a rule, I will not record anything that cannot be reproducd live by 4 or 5 guys playing intruments and singing. With that as a guideline, I agree with you 100%.

why

wizardry and magic are the studio's forte... otherwise it's called a live performance...

[thehymns]

I would have much rather recorded this band live, but unfortunatly a drum set takes up have the room I track in . The main problem is that the amp they used had a horrible high end hiss, but the band insisted it sounded better then my Fender Twin Reverb . Since I used Pro Tools, I decided to leave the tracks as they were with little/no EQ, just some fades, and I'm going to let a "professional" help me with the final mix and mastering of the songs and do a little noise reduction (at the bands expensive)...I could probably learn a trick or two from him and it ensures the bands demo is at an approriate volume. If you want to hear a rough mix of one of the songs, go to http://www.myspace.com/thekicking20s, the song is "Familiar Sounds". The other two I had no part on, they were done at a different studio (I think they spent $500 on something they weren't happy with...I think I'll make $80 ($20 a day) for 6 songs ).

[Zed10R]

Originally Posted by grn

you're missing a lot of great music if you won't record anything that cannot be reproduced live by four or five guys playing instruments and singing... some studio only shit is mind blowing

I disagree 100%.

I have little respect for bands or "artists" that rely on loops, samples, and automated equipment, and pre recorded ....stuff. I like it when it's used tastefully and in limited quantities, but RELYING on it is weak. It is, for lack of a better word, cheating. Those people cheat their way past a TON of critical lessons every recording musician SHOULD know, but most totally disregard. You will never fully acheive your potential if you rely on machines to play music for you.

I have heard "mind blowing" studio creations and to be honest they lack the emotional connectivity that (to me) metal is all about. Besides, if you need loops, samples, and automated equipment to make your point, you lack musical talent. Don't freak out now...that just my OPINION!! I have seen and heard countless examples of jaw dropping playing, song writing, and singing that has so much emotional impact that I cannot use words to explain. You cannot substitute real human talent and emotion with a programmed machine. But it sure is easier to learn.

But if you are speaking ONLY about the actual SOUND....then yeah, shit fabricated in the studio without the use of musical instruments has no noise, is always perfectly executed, pitch and tonality is always perfect, it is a superior SOUND. But music is WAY more than sound.

I'll clarify one thing: Keyboards count as an instument to me, as long as they not just being used to trigger sound bytes, loops, and other nonsense.

Originally Posted by Sonixx

why

wizardry and magic are the studio's forte... otherwise it's called a live performance...

Not so. PERFECTION is the forte of the studio. Capturing a PERFECT performance is what I use my studio for. If it is not prefect you must do it again and again untill it is. If you do not WANT to do it perfectly, I will point you in the direction of several studios that will be happy to record sub-par performances. Good enough will not cut it. And if you cannot play it with your own hands, I will not record it. Once the performance is captured I embellish the sound with the typical techniques, but by no means am I or will I fabricarte something that is not already in the music. These guidelines benefit me AND the person/people I am recording.

But of course, I have been called a nazi, hardass, a perfectionist, and my points often go unrecognized as I try to explain the difference between "right" and "close". Most people just can't hear the difference and it makes me nuts. But the finished product always makes the people happy.

I'll stop now.

[KonradG]

Originally Posted by Zed10R

As a rule, I will not record anything that cannot be reproducd live by 4 or 5 guys playing intruments and singing. With that as a guideline, I agree with you 100%.

thats stupid and confining. i play in a couple of bands and i got shit in the background that will blow your mind. just because it doesnt come out of an instrument with strings, drum heads, or keys doesnt mean it isnt music. for example, texas chainsaw massacre inspired me to write this one song, hardly no instruments at all, crazy shit, i found an interview of a crazy guy that said he could talk to ghosts so i put it on audio and put parts of it in the background where you subliminally hear some crazy fuck yelling at ghosts every once in a while. im not saying that instruments arent cool, but they arent everything. you need to listen to john cage, because i think he is the only crazy mother fucker who can get away with not using effects yet still having music that will blow your mind.

[Sonixx]

Originally Posted by Zed10R

Not so. PERFECTION is the forte of the studio.

for some clients wizardry and magic is called for